4.6 Article

Incidental findings on chest CT imaging are associated with increased COPD exacerbations and mortality

期刊

THORAX
卷 70, 期 8, 页码 725-731

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206160

关键词

-

资金

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research-Medical Sciences (NWO-MW) [40-00812-98-07-005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study aimed to evaluate whether incidental CT findings of emphysema, airway thickening and bronchiectasis, as seen on CT scans performed for other non-pulmonary clinical indications, are associated with future acute exacerbations of COPD resulting in hospitalisation or death. Methods This multicentre prospective case-cohort study comprised 6406 subjects who underwent routine diagnostic chest CT for non-pulmonary indications. Using a case-cohort approach, we visually graded CT scans from cases and a random sample of similar to 10% of the baseline cohort (n=704) for emphysema severity (range 0-20), airway thickening (range 0-5) and bronchiectasis (range 0-5). We used weighted Cox proportional hazards analysis to assess the independent association between CT findings and hospitalisation or death due to COPD exacerbation. Results During a median follow-up of 4.4 years (maximum 5.2 years), 338 COPD events were identified. The risk of experiencing a future acute exacerbation of COPD resulting in hospitalisation or death was significantly increased in subjects with severe emphysema (score >= 7) and severe airway thickening (score >= 3). The respective HRs were 4.6 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.1) and 5.9 (95% CI 3.4 to 10.5). Severe bronchiectasis (score >= 3) was not significantly associated with increased risk of adverse events (HR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9 to 2.5). Conclusions Morphological correlates of COPD such as emphysema and airway thickening detected on CT scans obtained for other non-pulmonary indications are strong independent predictors of subsequent development of acute exacerbations of COPD resulting in hospitalisation or death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据