4.6 Article

Value of chest radiography in phenotyping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 31, Issue 3, Pages 509-514

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00095607

Keywords

chest radiography; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; computed tomography; emphysema

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objectives of the present study were to reappraise chest radiography for the diagnosis of emphysema, using computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard, and to establish whether or not chest radiography is useful for phenotyping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Patients (n=154) who had undergone posteroanterior and lateral chest radiography and CT for diagnostic purposes were studied. CT data were scored for emphysema using the picture-grading method. Chest radiographs were examined independently by five raters using four criteria for emphysema that had been validated against lung pathology. These criteria were then used to assess the prevalence of emphysema in 458 COPD patients. Patients with and without evidence of emphysema were compared with regard to age, sex, smoking history, body mass index (BMI), forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DL,CO) and health status. Chest radiography yielded a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 98% for emphysema. Of the 458 COPD patients, 245 showed radiological evidence of emphysema. Emphysemic patients had a significantly lower BMI, FEV1 and DL,CO, greater restriction of physical activity and worse quality of life than nonemphysemic patients. There was no difference across the two groups with regard to age, sex or smoking history. Chest radiography is a simple means of diagnosing moderate-to-severe emphysema. It is useful in phenotyping chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and may aid physicians in their choice of treatment.

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