4.1 Article

Systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial pneumonia: evaluation of pulmonary function over a five-year period

Journal

JORNAL BRASILEIRO DE PNEUMOLOGIA
Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 144-151

Publisher

SOC BRASILEIRA PNEUMOLOGIA TISIOLOGIA
DOI: 10.1590/S1806-37132011000200003

Keywords

Scleroderma, systemic; Respiratory function tests; Tomography, X-ray computed

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate alterations in pulmonary function in patients with systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial pneumonia over a five-year period. Methods: This was a longitudinal study involving 35 nonsmoking patients with systemic sclerosis and without a history of lung disease. At the first evaluation, performed at the time of the diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia, the patients were submitted to HRCT, spirometry, and measurement of DLCO. The patients were subdivided into two groups by the presence or absence of honeycombing on the HRCT scans. Approximately five years after the first evaluation, the patients were submitted to spirometry and measurement of DLCO only. Results: Of the 35 patients, 34 were women. The mean age was 47.6 years. The mean time between the two evaluations was 60.9 months. Honeycombing was detected on the HRCT scans in 17 patients. In the sample as a whole, five years after the diagnosis, FVC, FEV1, and DLCO significantly decreased (81.3 +/- 18.2% vs. 72.1 +/- 22.2%; 79.9 +/- 17.8% vs. 72.5 +/- 20.6%; and 74.0 +/- 20.5% vs. 60.7 +/- 26.8%, respectively; p = 0.0001 for all), and the FEV1/FVC ratio significantly increased (98.5 +/- 7.2% vs. 101.9 +/- 7.8%; p = 0.008). In the same period, FVC, FEV1, and DLCO values were significantly lower in the patients with honeycombing on the HRCT scans than in those without (p = 0.0001). Conclusions: In systemic sclerosis-associated interstitial lung disease, the detection of honeycombing on HRCT is crucial to predicting accelerated worsening of pulmonary function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available