Pandian, Ganesh B.
ASSESSING THE IMPACT ON PEFR AMONG SMOKERS AND PASS IVE SMOKERS–A COMPARATIVE STUDY - Vol.11(11) - M P Innovare Academic Sciences Pvt Ltd 2019 - 17-19p.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to monitor the intens
ity and difference in Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PE
FR) between smokers and
passive smokers.
Methods:
A total of 1000 participants were enrolled in two
groups as smokers and passive smokers who are livin
g closely with smokers. Their
PEFR values were measured with Wright’s mini peak f
low meter. The influence of smoking on the lung fun
ction among smokers and passive
smokers were assessed with a suitable statistical t
est.
Results:
Among the study participants, most of the smokers
were in the age group of 31 to 60 and 31 to 50 in p
assive smokers. Based on the lung
function smokers (31%) and passive smokers (19.2%)
were in the red zone, PEFR was decreased in both sm
okers as well as passive smokers, and
the magnitude of decline was higher in passive smok
ing elderly individuals. The impact of passive smok
ing was significantly observed in all the
categories of smoking history they are living with.
Conclusion:
Smokers and passive smokers have equally deleterio
us effects on PEFR. Where passive smoking emerged a
s the main variable to
influence airway obstruction in smokers that caused
a greater reduction in PEFR.
PHARMACEUTICS
ASSESSING THE IMPACT ON PEFR AMONG SMOKERS AND PASS IVE SMOKERS–A COMPARATIVE STUDY - Vol.11(11) - M P Innovare Academic Sciences Pvt Ltd 2019 - 17-19p.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to monitor the intens
ity and difference in Peak Expiratory Flow Rate (PE
FR) between smokers and
passive smokers.
Methods:
A total of 1000 participants were enrolled in two
groups as smokers and passive smokers who are livin
g closely with smokers. Their
PEFR values were measured with Wright’s mini peak f
low meter. The influence of smoking on the lung fun
ction among smokers and passive
smokers were assessed with a suitable statistical t
est.
Results:
Among the study participants, most of the smokers
were in the age group of 31 to 60 and 31 to 50 in p
assive smokers. Based on the lung
function smokers (31%) and passive smokers (19.2%)
were in the red zone, PEFR was decreased in both sm
okers as well as passive smokers, and
the magnitude of decline was higher in passive smok
ing elderly individuals. The impact of passive smok
ing was significantly observed in all the
categories of smoking history they are living with.
Conclusion:
Smokers and passive smokers have equally deleterio
us effects on PEFR. Where passive smoking emerged a
s the main variable to
influence airway obstruction in smokers that caused
a greater reduction in PEFR.
PHARMACEUTICS