摘要目的:比较环卫工人与普通体检人群的肺功能差异，并分析环卫工人气流受限及其严重程度的危险因素。方法:本研究为一项大型横断面研究——“善心呼吸健康万人早筛”。选取2021年6月至2022年4月1 036例环卫工人（环卫组）和6 701例普通体检人群（对照组）作为原始研究对象（匹配前），两组均进行舒张前肺通气功能检查，环卫组同时进行问卷调查，比较两组肺功能特征的差异，采用多因素、有序多分类logistic回归分析环卫工人气流受限及其严重程度危险因素。结果:共纳入环卫组1 027例和对照组999例，两组在年龄、性别、身高、体重、体重指数（BMI）的差异均无统计学意义（均 P>0.05）。环卫组发生气流受限的比率显著高于对照组（22.88%比8.81%， P<0.001）。在环卫组中，气流受限人员（235例）与非气流受限人员（792例）的慢阻肺自我测试（CAT）评分差异无统计学意义［（1.50±2.50）比（1.15±2.03）分， P=0.084］。两组用力肺活量（FVC）占预计值百分比（%预计值）差异无统计学意义，但环卫组在第1秒用力呼气容积（FEV 1）%预计值、FVC/FEV 1及其%预计值、用力呼出50%、75%肺活量时的瞬间呼气流量（FEF 50%、FEF 75%）%预计值、最大呼气中期流量（MMEF）%预计值均显著低于对照组（均 P<0.05）。环卫组FEF 50%%预计值、FEF 75%%预计值、MMEF%预计值异常率均显著高于对照组（17.62%比10.31%、17.04%比10.01%、27.26%比18.41%，均 P<0.001）。环卫组曾经吸烟者、正在吸烟者的小气道指标及气流受限异常率均显著高于从未吸烟者（均 P<0.05）。多因素分析示高BMI（ OR=0.929，95% CI：0.885~0.974）是气流受限的保护因素，而高吸烟指数（ OR=1.020，95% CI：1.011~1.030）是气流受限的危险因素。有序多分类logistic回归分析示高BMI（ OR=0.925，95% CI：0.882~0.971）是气流受限严重程度的保护因素，而高吸烟指数（ OR=1.020，95% CI：1.011~1.029）是气流受限严重程度的危险因素。 结论:环卫工人气流受限及小气道异常发生率均高于普通体检人群，高吸烟指数及低BMI为环卫工人气流受限及其严重程度的独立危险因素。

abstractsObjective:To compare the differences in lung function between sanitation workers and the general population undergoing routine physical examinations, and to analyze the risk factors for restricted airflow and severity of the condition in sanitation workers.Methods:This study is a large cross-sectional study called "Shanxin Respiratory Health Screening for Ten Thousand People". A total of 1 036 sanitation workers (sanitation group) and 6 701 individuals from the general population undergoing routine physical examinations (control group) were selected as the original study subjects from June 2021 to April 2022 (before matching). Both groups underwent pre-bronchodilator lung function tests, and the differences in lung function characteristics between the two groups were compared. The sanitation group also completed a questionnaire survey. Multivariate and ordinal multinomial logistic regression analysis were used to analyze the risk factors for airflow limitation and its severity.Results:A total of 1 027 individuals from the sanitation group and 999 individuals from the control group were included in the study. There were no significant differences in age, gender, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) between the two groups (all P>0.05). The rate of airflow restriction was significantly higher in the sanitation group compared to the control group (22.88% vs 8.81%, P<0.001). In the sanitation group, there was no statistically significant difference in a self-assessment test for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CAT) scores between individuals with airflow restriction (235 cases) and those without airflow restriction (792 cases) [(1.50±2.50) vs (1.15±2.03) points, P=0.084]. There were no statistically significant differences in forced vital capacity (FVC) as a percentage of predicted value (FVC%pred) between the two groups. However, the sanitation group had significantly lower %pred for forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV 1%pred), FVC/FEV 1 ratio (FEV 1/FVC%pred), forced expiratory flow at 50% of FVC (FEF 50%%pred), forced expiratory flow at 75% of FVC (FEF 75%%pred), and maximal mid-expiratory flow (MMEF%pred) compared to the control group (all P<0.05). The rates of abnormal FEF 50%%pred, FEF 75%%pred, and MMEF%pred were significantly higher in the sanitation group compared to the control group (17.62% vs 10.31%, 17.04% vs 10.01%, 27.26% vs 18.41%, all P<0.001). Small airway parameters and the rate of airflow restriction were significantly higher in past and current smokers of the sanitation group compared to never smokers (all P<0.05). Multifactorial analysis showed that high BMI ( OR=0.929, 95% CI: 0.885-0.974) was a protective factor for airflow restriction, while high smoking index was a risk factor ( OR=1.020, 95% CI: 1.011-1.030). Ordered multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that high BMI ( OR=0.925, 95% CI: 0.882-0.971) was a protective factor for the severity of airflow restriction, while high smoking index ( OR=1.020, 95% CI: 1.011-1.029) was a risk factor for the severity of airflow restriction. Conclusions:The incidences of airflow limitation and small airway abnormalities in sanitation workers are higher than that in general physical examination population. High smoking index and low BMI are independent risk factors for airflow limitation and its severity.