ty -jour t1-比较评估儿童支气管反应能力的方法：单步冷空气挑战，多步冷空气挑战和组胺挑衅JF-欧洲呼吸杂志10 au -modl，m au -eber，e au -steinbrugger，b au -weinhandl，e au -au -zach，ms y1-1995/195/101 ur -http：//www.qdcxjkg.com/content/8/8/10/10/1742.ABSTRACT N2-可通过单个步骤（SSCACH）或多个步骤（MSCACH）协议应用冷空气挑战（CACH）。尚未研究不同协议的响应的相互关系。此外，关于冷空气挑战对药理挑衅结果的相关性的相关性存在矛盾的信息。单一和多步冷空气挑战和组胺挑衅连续三天对28个儿童和青少年进行了支气管哮喘，他们目前无症状和药物治疗。单步冷空气挑战包括干燥的4分钟异型过度换气，-10摄氏度空气；受试者的响应是通过一秒钟内强制呼气量变化（FEV1）量化的。多步冷空气挑战包括一系列3分钟冷的干空气高速换档步骤，从最大自愿通气的20％到80％（MVV）组成；反应表示为挑衅剂量，导致FEV1下降10％（PD10）。组胺的挑衅包括一系列2分钟吸入，逐步增加组胺浓度从0.03到8.0 mg.ml-1； response was expressed as the provocative concentration of histamine causing a 20% fall in FEV1 (PC20). Change in FEV1 (delta FEV1) (SSCACh) correlated closely with PD10 (MSCACh); scatter around the regression line was minimal. With one exception, both types of CACh identified the same subjects as hyper- and normoresponsive. delta FEV1 (SSCACh) correlated significantly to PC20 (histamine), but scatter around the regression line was substantial. The correlation of PD10 (MSCACh) to PC20 (histamine) failed to reach statistical significance. These results indicate that the stimulus applied and the bronchoconstrictor mechanism activated, and not the challenge protocol, determine the outcome of a cold air challenge. In clinical practice, a brief single step cold air challenge can substitute for a more time-consuming multiple step cold air challenge. As nonpharmacological challenges seem to measure a different type of bronchial responsiveness, neither a single step nor a multiple step cold air challenge can substitute for a pharmacological provocation. ER -