4.4 Article

A comparative study of thin-section CT findings between seasonal influenza virus pneumonia and Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 87, Issue 1039, Pages -

Publisher

BRITISH INST RADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20140051

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the pulmonary thin-section CT findings in patients with seasonal influenza virus pneumonia with Streptococcus pneumoniae pneumonia. Methods: The study group included 30 patients (20 males and 10 females; age range, 20-91 years; mean age, 55.9 years) with seasonal influenza virus pneumonia and 71 patients (47 males and 24 females; age range, 27-92 years; mean age, 67.5 years) with S. pneumoniae pneumonia. Results: The proportion of community-acquired infection was significantly higher in patients with influenza virus pneumonia than with S. pneumoniae pneumonia (p = 0.001). CT findings of ground-glass attenuation (GGA) (p = 0.012) and crazy-paving appearance (p = 0.03) were significantly more frequent in patients with influenza virus pneumonia than with S. pneumoniae pneumonia. Conversely, consolidation (p < 0.001), mucoid impaction (p < 0.001), centrilobular nodules (p = 0.04) and pleural effusion (p = 0.003) were significantly more frequent in patients with S. pneumoniae pneumonia than in those with influenza virus pneumonia. Conclusion: Pulmonary thin-section CT findings, such as consolidation and mucoid impaction may be useful in distinguishing between seasonal influenza virus pneumonia and S. pneumoniae pneumonia. Advances in knowledge: (1) Distinguishing seasonal influenza virus pneumonia with S. pneumoniae pneumonia is important. (2) The CT findings of GGA and crazy paving appearance were more frequently found in patients with influenza virus pneumonia than in patients with S. pneumoniae pneumonia, whereas consolidation, mucoid impaction, centrilobular nodules and pleural effusion were more frequently found in patients with S. pneumoniae pneumonia.

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