PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between ambient temperature and diurnal temperature range (DTR) on emergency admissions for hyperventilation syndrome (HVS).
METHODS: Distributed lag non-linear model design was used with a lag time to 5 days.
METHODS: Emergency admission data used were from the Beijing Red Cross Emergency Centre (2017-2018).
UNASSIGNED: Cases were those with emergency visits to the Beijing Emergency Center during the period 2017-2018 and who were given the primary outcome indicator defined as HVS according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition code F45.303. Ambient temperature and DTR were used as exposure factors with adjustments for relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation, seasonality long-term trend and day of the week.
METHODS: We used the minimum emergency visits temperature as a reference to indicate the relative risk with 95% CI of exposure-response for the risk of HVS visits at different temperatures.
RESULTS: A u-shape was described between ambient temperature and HVS visits, with a minimum risk at 12°C. Moderate heat (23°C) at lag (0-3) days, extreme heat at lag 0 days, had greatest relative risks on HVS visits, with 2.021 (95% CI 1.101 to 3.71) and 1.995 (95% CI 1.016 to 3.915), respectively. A stronger association between HVS visits and temperature was found in women and aged ≤44 years. Notably, the relationship between DTR and HVS visits appeared a reverse u-shaped. Low DTR (4°C) effect appeared at lag (0-1) days with 0.589 (95% CI 0.395 to 0.878), lasting until lag (0-3) days with 0.535 (95% CI 0.319 to 0.897) and was associated with a reduced risk of HVS visits in women and those aged ≤44 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Ambient temperature and DTR were associated with HVS visits, appearing a differentiation in gender and age groups. Timely prevention strategies during high temperatures and control mild changes in temperature might reduce the risk of HVS.
METHODS: Distributed lag non-linear model design was used with a lag time to 5 days.
METHODS: Emergency admission data used were from the Beijing Red Cross Emergency Centre (2017-2018).
UNASSIGNED: Cases were those with emergency visits to the Beijing Emergency Center during the period 2017-2018 and who were given the primary outcome indicator defined as HVS according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition code F45.303. Ambient temperature and DTR were used as exposure factors with adjustments for relative humidity, wind speed, precipitation, seasonality long-term trend and day of the week.
METHODS: We used the minimum emergency visits temperature as a reference to indicate the relative risk with 95% CI of exposure-response for the risk of HVS visits at different temperatures.
RESULTS: A u-shape was described between ambient temperature and HVS visits, with a minimum risk at 12°C. Moderate heat (23°C) at lag (0-3) days, extreme heat at lag 0 days, had greatest relative risks on HVS visits, with 2.021 (95% CI 1.101 to 3.71) and 1.995 (95% CI 1.016 to 3.915), respectively. A stronger association between HVS visits and temperature was found in women and aged ≤44 years. Notably, the relationship between DTR and HVS visits appeared a reverse u-shaped. Low DTR (4°C) effect appeared at lag (0-1) days with 0.589 (95% CI 0.395 to 0.878), lasting until lag (0-3) days with 0.535 (95% CI 0.319 to 0.897) and was associated with a reduced risk of HVS visits in women and those aged ≤44 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Ambient temperature and DTR were associated with HVS visits, appearing a differentiation in gender and age groups. Timely prevention strategies during high temperatures and control mild changes in temperature might reduce the risk of HVS.
摘要：
目的：评估环境温度和昼夜温度范围（DTR）与过度通气综合征（HVS）急诊入院之间的关系。
方法：使用分布式滞后非线性模型设计，滞后时间为5天。
方法：使用的急诊入院数据来自北京红十字会急救中心（2017-2018）。
病例是指在2017-2018年期间到北京急救中心进行紧急访问的病例，根据国际疾病分类，其主要结果指标被定义为HVS。第10版代码F45.303.环境温度和DTR被用作暴露因子，并调整相对湿度，风速,降水,季节性长期趋势和星期几。
方法：我们使用最低急诊就诊温度作为参考，以95％CI指示在不同温度下HVS就诊风险的相对风险。
结果：在环境温度和HVS访问之间描述了一个u形，在12°C时风险最小。滞后（0-3）天的中热（23°C），滞后0天的极端高温，在HVS访问中具有最大的相对风险，2.021(95%CI1.101至3.71)和1.995(95%CI1.016至3.915)，分别。在年龄≤44岁的女性中，HVS访问与温度之间的关联更强。值得注意的是,DTR和HVS访问之间的关系呈倒U型。低DTR（4°C）效应出现在滞后（0-1）天，0.589（95％CI0.395至0.878），持续至滞后(0-3)天,为0.535(95%CI0.319~0.897),与女性和年龄≤44岁的女性的HVS就诊风险降低相关.
结论：环境温度和DTR与HVS就诊相关，出现性别和年龄组的差异。高温期间的及时预防策略和控制温度的温和变化可能会降低HVS的风险。
方法：使用分布式滞后非线性模型设计，滞后时间为5天。
方法：使用的急诊入院数据来自北京红十字会急救中心（2017-2018）。
病例是指在2017-2018年期间到北京急救中心进行紧急访问的病例，根据国际疾病分类，其主要结果指标被定义为HVS。第10版代码F45.303.环境温度和DTR被用作暴露因子，并调整相对湿度，风速,降水,季节性长期趋势和星期几。
方法：我们使用最低急诊就诊温度作为参考，以95％CI指示在不同温度下HVS就诊风险的相对风险。
结果：在环境温度和HVS访问之间描述了一个u形，在12°C时风险最小。滞后（0-3）天的中热（23°C），滞后0天的极端高温，在HVS访问中具有最大的相对风险，2.021(95%CI1.101至3.71)和1.995(95%CI1.016至3.915)，分别。在年龄≤44岁的女性中，HVS访问与温度之间的关联更强。值得注意的是,DTR和HVS访问之间的关系呈倒U型。低DTR（4°C）效应出现在滞后（0-1）天，0.589（95％CI0.395至0.878），持续至滞后(0-3)天,为0.535(95%CI0.319~0.897),与女性和年龄≤44岁的女性的HVS就诊风险降低相关.
结论：环境温度和DTR与HVS就诊相关，出现性别和年龄组的差异。高温期间的及时预防策略和控制温度的温和变化可能会降低HVS的风险。
