Abstract

There is controversy as to whether airflow limitation should be defined as forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/vital capacity (VC) < 0.7 or as FEV1/VC< the lower limit of normal (LLN). The aim was to examine whether different definitions of airflow limitation differ in predicting mortality. Longitudinal prospective study of a national cohort of Swedish workers (199,408 men; 7988 women), aged 20-64 years with spirometry without bronchodilation at baseline followed from 1979 until death, or censorship at 2010. Airflow limitation (AL) by Global Obstructive Lung Disease criteria, ALGOLD, was defined as FEV1/VC < 0.7; ALLLN as FEV1/VC < LLN. All all-cause, COPD and cardiovascular disease mortality was analyzed among men and women in relation to ALGOLD and ALLLN, adjusted for age and smoking. Among men, all-cause mortality risks were similar by airflow limitation criteria: ALGOLD RR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.26-1.38; ALLLN, RR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.31-1.44. The risk estimates were also similar by airflow limitation definition for cardiovascular mortality and for COPD mortality. Among women, all-cause mortality was also similar by airflow limitation criteria, but significantly higher as compared to men: ALGOLD RR = 2.10, 95% CI 1.66-2.66; ALLLN, RR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.66-2.62. Also cardiovascular and COPD mortality by airflow limitation criteria was significantly higher among women as compared to men. Defined either as FEV1/VC < 0.7 or as FEV1/VC < LLN, airflow limitation predicted excess mortality risk of similar magnitude. Mortality in relation to airflow limitation was higher among women compared to men.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.