4.4 Article

Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Clinical Grading in Relation to Ventilation/Perfusion Mismatch Measured by Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography

Journal

PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 12, Pages 1206-1213

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.22751

Keywords

bronchopulmonary dysplasia; ventilation; perfusion; V; Q; preterm; lung function; SPECT; BPD; clinical grading

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is a significant cause of morbidity in the preterm population. Clinical severity grading based on the need for supplemental oxygen and/or need for positive airway pressure at 36 weeks postmenstrual age does not yield reproducible predictive values for later pulmonary morbidity. Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) was used to measure the distribution of lung ventilation (V) and perfusion (Q) in 30 BPD preterm infants at a median age of 37 weeks postmenstrual age. The V and Q were traced with 5MBq Technegas and Technetium-labeled albumin macro aggregates, respectively, and the V/Q match-mismatch was used to quantify the extent of lung function impairment. The latter was then compared with the clinical severity grading at 36 weeks, and time spent on mechanical ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and supplemental oxygen. Of those with mild and moderate BPD 3/9 and 3/11 patients, respectively, showed significant V/Q mismatches. By contrast, 4/10 patients with severe BPD showed a satisfactory V/Q matching distribution. An unsatisfactory V/Q match was not correlated with time spent on supplemental oxygen or CPAP, but was significantly negatively correlated with time spent on mechanical ventilation. SPECT provides unique additional information about regional lung function. The results suggest that the current clinical severity grading can be improved and/or complemented with SPECT. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2013; 48:1206-1213. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available