Journal
RESPIRATORY MEDICINE
Volume 104, Issue 1, Pages 76-82Publisher
W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2009.08.004
Keywords
Emphysema; COPD; Smoking; Spirometry; Diffusion capacity testing
Funding
- ZonMW
- KWF
- RVVZ
- Siemens AG
- ROTS
- G. Ph. Verhagen Trust
- Erasmus Trust in the Netherlands
- Flemish League against Cancer
- LOGO Leuven
- LOGO Hagetand
- Trust against Cancer in Belgium
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Purpose: To investigate impact of distribution of computed tomography (CT) emphysema on severity of airflow limitation and gas exchange impairment in current and former heavy smokers participating in a tung cancer screening trial. Materials and Methods: In total 875 current and former heavy smokers underwent baseline tow-dose CT (30 mAs) in our center and spirometry and diffusion capacity testing on the same day as part of the Dutch-Belgian Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON). Emphysema was quantified for 872 subjects as the number of voxels with an apparent towered X-ray attenuation coefficient. Voxels attenuated <-950 HU were categorized as representing severe emphysema (ES950), white voxels attenuated between -910 HU and -950 HU represented moderate emphysema (ES910). Impact of distribution on severity of pulmonary function impairment was investigated with logistic regression, adjusted for total amount of emphysema. Results: For ES910 an apical distribution was associated with more airflow obstruction and gas exchange impairment than a basal distribution (both p < 0.01). The FEV1/FVC ratio was 1.6% (95% CI 0.42% to 2.8%) lower for apical predominance than for basal predominance, for Tlco/V-A the difference was 0.12% (95% CI 0.076-0.15%). Distribution of ES950 had no impact on FEV1/FVC ratio, while an apical distribution was associated with a 0.076% (95% CI 0.038-0.11%) tower Tlco/V-A (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In a heavy smoking population, an apical distribution is associated with more severe gas exchange impairment than a basal distribution; for moderate emphysema it is also associated with a tower FEV1/FVC ratio. However, differences are small, and likely clinically irrelevant. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available