4.6 Article

A quantitative CT parameter for the assessment of pulmonary oedema in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241590

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The aim of this study was to establish quantitative CT (qCT) parameters for pathophysiological understanding and clinical use in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The most promising parameter is introduced. Materials and methods 28 intubated patients with ARDS obtained a conventional CT scan in end-expiratory breathhold within the first 48 hours after admission to intensive care unit (ICU). Following manual segmentation, 137 volume- and lung weight-associated qCT parameters were correlated with 71 clinical parameters such as blood gases, applied ventilation pressures, pulse contour cardiac output measurements and established status and prognosis scores (SOFA, SAPS II). Results Of all examined qCT parameters, excess lung weight (ELW), i.e. the difference between a patient's current lung weight and the virtual lung weight of a healthy person at the same height, displayed the most significant results. ELW correlated significantly with the amount of inflated lung tissue [%] (p<0.0001; r = -0.66) and was closely associated with the amount of extravascular lung water (EVLW) (p<0.0001; r = 0.72). More substantially than the oxygenation index (PaO2/FiO(2)) or any other clinical parameter it correlated with the patients' mean SOFA- (p<0.0001, r = 0.69) and SAPS II-Score (p = 0.0005, r = 0.62). Patients who did not survive intensive care treatment displayed higher values of ELW in the initial CT scans. Conclusions ELW could serve as a non-invasive method to quantify the amount of pulmonary oedema. It might serve as an early radiological marker of severity in patients with ARDS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available