4.7 Article

COVID-19 pneumonia: CT findings of 122 patients and differentiation from influenza pneumonia

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 5463-5469

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06928-0

关键词

Coronavirus infections; Tomography; x-ray computed; Pneumonia; viral; Influenza; Human

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To investigate the clinical and chest CT characteristics of COVID-19 pneumonia and explore the radiological differences between COVID-19 and influenza. Materials and methods A total of 122 patients (61 men and 61 women, 48 +/- 15 years) confirmed with COVID-19 and 48 patients (23 men and 25 women, 47 +/- 19 years) confirmed with influenza were enrolled in the study. Thin-section CT was performed. The clinical data and the chest CT findings were recorded. Results The most common symptoms of COVID-19 were fever (74%) and cough (63%), and 102 patients (83%) had Wuhan contact. Pneumonia in 50 patients with COVID-19 (45%) distributed in the peripheral regions of the lung, while it showed mixed distribution in 26 patients (74%) with influenza (p = 0.022). The most common CT features of the COVID-19 group were pure ground-glass opacities (GGO, 36%), GGO with consolidation (51%), rounded opacities (35%), linear opacities (64%), bronchiolar wall thickening (49%), and interlobular septal thickening (66%). Compared with the influenza group, the COVID-19 group was more likely to have rounded opacities (35% vs. 17%, p = 0.048) and interlobular septal thickening (66% vs. 43%, p = 0.014), but less likely to have nodules (28% vs. 71%, p < 0.001), tree-in-bud sign (9% vs. 40%, p < 0.001), and pleural effusion (6% vs. 31%, p < 0.001). Conclusions There are significant differences in the CT manifestations of patients with COVID-19 and influenza. Presence of rounded opacities and interlobular septal thickening, with the absence of nodules and tree-in-bud sign, and with the typical peripheral distribution, may help us differentiate COVID-19 from influenza.

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

4.7
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