You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Epilogue
Unusual cause of dyspnoea
  1. Nicola Ullmann1,
  2. Giulia Ceglie1,
  3. Maria Giovanna Paglietti1,
  4. Sergio Bottero2,
  5. Renato Cutrera1
  1. 1Department of Pediatrics, Pediatric Hospital ‘Bambino Gesù’, Rome, Italy
  2. 2Laryngotracheal Team, Airway Surgery Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Giulia Ceglie, Department of Pediatrics, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, Piazza S.Onofrio, Rome 00165, Italy; giulia.ceglie{at}gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2017-313059

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.

    A 4-year-old boy was admitted to our department with fever, cough and dyspnoea, unresponsive to salbutamol and antibiotic therapy. He had previously contracted bronchiolitis at 20 days of life, followed by intermittent episodes of wheeze that never required hospitalisation and responded to short inhaled corticosteroid cycles. He had an atopic family history. On examination, he had dyspnoea, persistent cough with bronchospasm but normal oxygen saturations. Bloods showed elevated eosinophils (2004 µL), a slightly elevated C-reactive protein (1.5 mg/dL) and total IgE (326 kU/L), and specific IgE was raised for various inhalant allergens (box). A chest X-ray was performed (figure 1).

    Box

    Positive inhalant allergens

    • Anthoxanthum odoratum

    • Cynodon dactylon

    • Dactylis glomerata

    • Dermatophagoides farinae

    • Dermatophagoides pteronissimus

    • Holcus lanatus

    • Poa pratensis

    • Phleum …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NU and GC contribuited to data collection and analysis. NU, GC and MGP collaborated to the clinical follow-up of the patient, and analysed clinical data. SB performed the bronchoscopy; NU and GC wrote the paper. RC and SB interpreted the results and revised the text.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained from the parent/guardian.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.