Artificial stone-associated silicosis in China: A prospective comparison with natural stone-associated silicosis.
China
/ epidemiology
Disease Progression
Dust
/ analysis
Female
Humans
Lung Transplantation
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Manufactured Materials
/ adverse effects
Middle Aged
Occupational Exposure
/ adverse effects
Quartz
/ adverse effects
Respiratory Function Tests
Severity of Illness Index
Silicosis
/ diagnosis
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
/ methods
artificial stone
progressive massive fibrosis
pulmonary function
respirable crystalline silica
silicosis
Journal
Respirology (Carlton, Vic.)
ISSN: 1440-1843
Titre abrégé: Respirology
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9616368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
received:
26
06
2019
revised:
23
10
2019
accepted:
28
10
2019
pubmed:
13
12
2019
medline:
29
6
2021
entrez:
13
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We recently noted a dramatic increase in the number of patients with accelerated silicosis associated with exposure to artificial stone dust. Therefore, the natural history of artificial stone-associated silicosis was compared with that of natural stone-associated silicosis. A total of 18 patients with artificial stone-associated silicosis and 63 with natural stone-associated silicosis were diagnosed sequentially in 2018 and followed up for a period of 6-12 months. Data were collected from clinical charts. The median duration of exposure prior to onset of symptoms of silicosis was shorter for patients who had been exposed to artificial stone dust (6.4 vs 29.3 years, P < 0.01). Four of the 18 patients experienced rapid deterioration in lung function over the follow-up period, with declines in pre-bronchodilator FVC of 587 (210-960) mL/year and FEV Compared to natural stone-associated silicosis, artificial stone-associated silicosis was characterized by short latency, rapid radiological progression, accelerated decline in lung function and high mortality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
We recently noted a dramatic increase in the number of patients with accelerated silicosis associated with exposure to artificial stone dust. Therefore, the natural history of artificial stone-associated silicosis was compared with that of natural stone-associated silicosis.
METHODS
A total of 18 patients with artificial stone-associated silicosis and 63 with natural stone-associated silicosis were diagnosed sequentially in 2018 and followed up for a period of 6-12 months. Data were collected from clinical charts.
RESULTS
The median duration of exposure prior to onset of symptoms of silicosis was shorter for patients who had been exposed to artificial stone dust (6.4 vs 29.3 years, P < 0.01). Four of the 18 patients experienced rapid deterioration in lung function over the follow-up period, with declines in pre-bronchodilator FVC of 587 (210-960) mL/year and FEV
CONCLUSION
Compared to natural stone-associated silicosis, artificial stone-associated silicosis was characterized by short latency, rapid radiological progression, accelerated decline in lung function and high mortality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31828940
doi: 10.1111/resp.13744
pmc: PMC7187561
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dust
0
Quartz
14808-60-7
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
518-524Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. Respirology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.
Références
Eur Respir J. 2005 Sep;26(3):511-22
pubmed: 16135736
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2016 Nov;13(11):817-28
pubmed: 27135749
Lancet. 2012 May 26;379(9830):2008-18
pubmed: 22534002
Chest. 2012 Aug;142(2):419-424
pubmed: 22383661
J Heart Lung Transplant. 2015 Jan;34(1):1-15
pubmed: 25085497
Eur J Radiol. 2018 Oct;107:98-104
pubmed: 30292280
Rev Clin Esp (Barc). 2019 Jan - Feb;219(1):26-29
pubmed: 30293675
Respirology. 2020 May;25(5):518-524
pubmed: 31828940
Pneumologie. 2003 Oct;57(10):576-84
pubmed: 14569528
Occup Med (Lond). 2015 Aug;65(6):444-50
pubmed: 26070814
Arch Bronconeumol. 2010 Feb;46(2):97-100
pubmed: 19818543
J Thorac Imaging. 2002 Oct;17(4):238-60
pubmed: 12362064
ERJ Open Res. 2016 Mar 17;2(1):
pubmed: 27730180
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2005 Mar;11(2):169-73
pubmed: 15699791
Arch Bronconeumol. 2015 Dec;51(12):e57-60
pubmed: 26410340
J Occup Environ Med. 2014 Oct;56 Suppl 10:S18-22
pubmed: 25285970
Practitioner. 2002 Feb;246(1631):114, 117-9
pubmed: 11852619
Arch Bronconeumol. 2011 Jan;47(1):50-1
pubmed: 21190766
Ann Occup Hyg. 2015 Jan;59(1):122-6
pubmed: 25326187
Int J Occup Environ Health. 2014 Jan-Mar;20(1):26-32
pubmed: 24804337
Am J Ind Med. 2016 Mar;59(3):175-7
pubmed: 26725917
J Occup Health. 2009;51(3):210-22
pubmed: 19372629
Environ Health Perspect. 1994 Oct;102 Suppl 5:173-9
pubmed: 7882925
Occup Environ Med. 2018 Jan;75(1):3-5
pubmed: 28882991
Int J Mol Sci. 2014 Dec 03;15(12):22258-78
pubmed: 25479073
Radiology. 2003 Sep;228(3):816-25
pubmed: 12954899
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 16;16(4):
pubmed: 30781462
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2003 Apr 1;167(7):962-9
pubmed: 12663338