3.8 Article

Simple quantitative chest CT for pulmonary edema

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY OPEN
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2020.100273

Keywords

Pulmonary edema; Chest radiograph; CT; Quantitative CT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of quantitative CT to diagnose pulmonary edema compared to qualitative CT and CXR and to determine a threshold Hounsfield unit (HU) measurement for pulmonary edema on CT examinations. Method: Electronic medical records were searched for patients with a billing diagnosis of heart failure and a Chest CT and CXR performed within three hours between 1/1/2016 to 10/1/2016, yielding 100 patients. CXR and CT examinations were scored for the presence and severity of edema, using a 0-5 scale, and CT HU measurements were obtained in each lobe. Polyserial correlation coefficients evaluated the association between CT HUs and CXR scores, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis determined a cutoff CT HU value for identification of pulmonary edema. Results: Correlation between CT HU and CXR score was moderately strong (r = 0.58-0.685) with CT HU measurements demonstrating good to excellent accuracy in differentiating between no edema (grade 0) and mild to severe edema (grades 1-5) in every lobe, with AUCs ranging between 0.869 and 0.995. The left upper lobe demonstrated the highest accuracy, using a cutoff value of -825 HU (AUC of 0.995, sensitivity = 100 % and specificity = 95.1 %). Additionally, qualitative CT evaluation was less sensitive (84 %) than portable CXR in identifying pulmonary edema. However, quantitative CT evaluation was as sensitive as portable CXR (100 %) and highly specific (95 %). Conclusions: Quantitative CT enables the identification of pulmonary edema with high accuracy and demonstrates a greater sensitivity than qualitative CT in assessment of pulmonary edema.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available