Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Oral Session 4 – Lung function studies

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

O4.1 LUNG FUNCTION IN A COHORT OF ASBESTOS EXPOSED WORKERS IN THE POWER INDUSTRY IN VICTORIA

M. Abramson1, R. Manser2, F. Dickson2, D. Jolley3, G. Benke1, M. de Campo2, J. Nosworthy2, C. Staley2, M. Keating4, D. Campbell5.1Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia; 2Clinical Epidemiology and Health Service Evaluation Unit, Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia; 3School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Australia; 4Regional Respiratory Service, Traralgon, Australia; 5Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background: In 1979, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria established a lung function screening programme for its employees. We wished to establish how lung function amongst participants varied in relation to asbestos exposure and whether this was related to mortality.

Methods: The study population consisted of 3138 former employees who had been medically assessed and had lung function testing between 1979 and 1992. Mortality was ascertained by linkage to the National Death Index and survival analysis performed using Stata software.

Results: At first attendance, 39.6% were current smokers, 32.3% former smokers, and 28.1% had never smoked. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was lower among current smokers, and an effect of smoking cessation emerged after the age of 40 years. On average, never smokers had a 7.6% (95% confidence interval 6.3% to 8.9%) greater mean FEV1% predicted than current smokers, and former smokers had a mean FEV1% of 5.7% (4.5% to 7.0%) greater than that of current smokers. Asbestos exposure was assessed as negligible (incidental) in 19.8%, environmental (background) in 48.8%, occasional direct handling in 24.5%, and handling in confined spaces for 6.9%. There were significant relationships between FEV1% predicted at enrolment and both the duration (F = 14.1, p<0.0001) and level (F = 5.77, p = 0.0006) of asbestos exposure. The lowest …

View Full Text