4.6 Article

Computed tomography-quantified emphysema distribution is associated with lung function decline

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 844-850

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00186311

关键词

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; computed tomography; emphysema; lung function decline; smoking

资金

  1. European Union Seventh Framework Package grant [201379]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Emphysema distribution is associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It is, however, unknown whether computed tomography (CT)-quantified emphysema distribution (upper/lower lobe) is associated with lung function decline in heavy (former) smokers. 587 male participants underwent lung CT and pulmonary function testing at baseline and after a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.9 (2.8-3.0) yrs. The lungs were automatically segmented based on anatomically defined lung lobes. Severity of emphysema was automatically quantified per anatomical lung lobe and was expressed as the 15th percentile (Hounsfield unit point below which 15% of the low-attenuation voxels are distributed (Perc15)). The CT-quantified emphysema distribution was based on principal component analysis. Linear mixed models were used to assess the association of emphysema distribution with forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC), FEV1 and FVC decline. Mean +/- SD age was 60.2 +/- 5.4 yrs, mean baseline FEV1/FVC was 71.6 +/- 9.0% and overall mean Perc15 was -908.5 +/- 20.9 HU. Participants with upper lobe-predominant CT-quantified emphysema had a lower FEV1/FVC, FEV1 and FVC after follow-up compared with participants with lower lobe-predominant CT-quantified emphysema (p=0.001), independent of the total extent of CT-quantified emphysema. Heavy (former) smokers with upper lobe-predominant CT-quantified emphysema have a more rapid decrease in lung function than those with lower lobe-predominant CT-quantified emphysema.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据