Gene R Pesola1, Maria Argos2, Vernon M Chinchilli3, Yu Chen4, Faruque Parvez5, Tariqul Islam6, Alauddin Ahmed6, Rabiul Hasan6, Muhammad Rakibuz-Zaman6, Habibul Ahsan7. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Section of Pulmonary/Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital affiliated with Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Environmental Sciences, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. 6. University of Chicago Research (URB), Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Department of Health Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA University of Chicago Research (URB), Ltd., Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The spectrum of mortality outcomes by cause in populations with/without dyspnoea has not been determined. The study aimed to evaluate whether dyspnoea, a symptom, predicts cause-specific mortality differences between groups. The hypothesis was that diseases that result in chronic dyspnoea, those originating from the heart and lungs, would preferentially result in heart and lung disease mortality in those with baseline dyspnoea (relative to no dyspnoea) when followed over time. METHODS: A population-based sample of 11 533 Bangladeshis was recruited and followed for 11-12 years and cause-specific mortality evaluated in those with and without baseline dyspnoea. Dyspnoea was ascertained by trained physicians. The cause of death was determined by verbal autopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the Fine-Gray competing risk hazards model and logistic regression models were used to determine group differences in cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Compared to those not reporting dyspnoea at baseline, the adjusted HRs were 6.4 (3.8 to 10.7), 9.3 (3.9 to 22.3), 1.8 (1.2 to 2.8), 2.2 (1.0 to 5.1) and 2.8 (1.3 to 6.2) for greater risk of dying from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, heart disease, tuberculosis and lung cancer, respectively. In contrast, there was a similar risk of dying from stroke, cancer (excluding lung), liver disease, accidents and other (miscellaneous causes) between the dyspnoeic and non-dyspnoeic groups. In addition, the HR was 2.1 (1.7 to 2.5) for greater all-cause mortality in those with baseline dyspnoea versus no dyspnoea. CONCLUSIONS: Dyspnoea, ascertained by a single question with binary response, predicts heart and lung disease mortality. Individuals reporting dyspnoea were twofold to ninefold more likely to die of diseases that involve the heart and/or lungs relative to the non-dyspnoeic individuals. Therefore, in those with chronic dyspnoea, workup to look for the five common dyspnoeic diseases resulting in increased mortality (COPD, asthma, heart disease, tuberculosis and lung cancer), all treatable, should reduce mortality and improve the public health. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
BACKGROUND: The spectrum of mortality outcomes by cause in populations with/without dyspnoea has not been determined. The study aimed to evaluate whether dyspnoea, a symptom, predicts cause-specific mortality differences between groups. The hypothesis was that diseases that result in chronic dyspnoea, those originating from the heart and lungs, would preferentially result in heart and lung disease mortality in those with baseline dyspnoea (relative to no dyspnoea) when followed over time. METHODS: A population-based sample of 11 533 Bangladeshis was recruited and followed for 11-12 years and cause-specific mortality evaluated in those with and without baseline dyspnoea. Dyspnoea was ascertained by trained physicians. The cause of death was determined by verbal autopsy. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, the Fine-Gray competing risk hazards model and logistic regression models were used to determine group differences in cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: Compared to those not reporting dyspnoea at baseline, the adjusted HRs were 6.4 (3.8 to 10.7), 9.3 (3.9 to 22.3), 1.8 (1.2 to 2.8), 2.2 (1.0 to 5.1) and 2.8 (1.3 to 6.2) for greater risk of dying from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, heart disease, tuberculosis and lung cancer, respectively. In contrast, there was a similar risk of dying from stroke, cancer (excluding lung), liver disease, accidents and other (miscellaneous causes) between the dyspnoeic and non-dyspnoeic groups. In addition, the HR was 2.1 (1.7 to 2.5) for greater all-cause mortality in those with baseline dyspnoea versus no dyspnoea. CONCLUSIONS:Dyspnoea, ascertained by a single question with binary response, predicts heart and lung disease mortality. Individuals reporting dyspnoea were twofold to ninefold more likely to die of diseases that involve the heart and/or lungs relative to the non-dyspnoeic individuals. Therefore, in those with chronic dyspnoea, workup to look for the five common dyspnoeic diseases resulting in increased mortality (COPD, asthma, heart disease, tuberculosis and lung cancer), all treatable, should reduce mortality and improve the public health. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Authors: Faruque Parvez; Fredine T Lauer; Pam Factor-Litvak; Xinhua Liu; Regina M Santella; Tariqul Islam; Mahbubul Eunus; Nur Alam; Golam Sarwar; Mizanour Rahman; Habibul Ahsan; Joseph Graziano; Scott W Burchiel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 3.752