4.6 Article

Pulmonary function measures predict mortality differently in IPF versus combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 176-183

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00114010

Keywords

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; prognosis; pulmonary function; survival

Funding

  1. National Institutes for Health/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [T32 HL07749-17, U10 HL080371, RO1 HL091743-01, K23 HL68713-01, P50 HL56402-06, K24 HL004212, K23 HL93351]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The composite physiologic index (CPI) was derived to represent the extent of fibrosis on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT), adjusting for emphysema in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). We hypothesised that longitudinal change in CPI would better predict mortality than forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC) or diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DL,CO) in all patients with IPF, and especially in those with combined pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema (CPFE). Cox proportional hazard models were performed on pulmonary function data from IPF patients at baseline (n=321), 6 months (n=211) and 12 months (n=144). Presence of CPFE was determined by HRCT. A five-point increase in CPI over 12 months predicted subsequent mortality (HR 2.1, p=0.004). At 12 months, a 10% relative decline in FVC, a 15% relative decline in DL, CO or an absolute increase in CPI of five points all discriminated median survival by 2.1 to 2.2 yrs versus patients with lesser change. Half our cohort had CPFE. In patients with moderate/severe emphysema, only a 10% decline in FEV1 predicted mortality (HR 3.7, p=0.046). In IPF, a five-point increase in CPI over 12 months predicts mortality similarly to relative declines of 10% in FVC or 15% in DL, CO. For CPFE patients, change in FEV1 was the best predictor of mortality.

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