4.7 Article

MRI and Pulmonary Function Tests' Results as Ventilation Inhomogeneity Markers in Children and Adolescents with Cystic Fibrosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12155136

关键词

cystic fibrosis; children; MRI; pulmonary function tests

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to assess the relationship between MRI and pulmonary function tests in CF children. Significant correlations were found between MRI perfusion scores and various PFT parameters. Differences in PFT variables were observed between patient groups divided based on perfusion scores. MRI could detect abnormalities earlier than PFTs in CF children.
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the chest is becoming more available in the detection and monitoring of early changes in lung function and structure in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between pulmonary function tests (PFT) and perfusion deficits in CF children measured by MRI. We performed a retrospective analysis of the perfusion lung MRI scans and the results of spirometry, oscillometry, body plethysmography, single-breath carbon monoxide uptake, and multiple-breath washout technique (MBW). There were statistically significant correlations between the MRI perfusion scores and MBW parameters (2.5% LCI, M1/M0, M2/M0), spirometry parameters (FEV1, FVC, FEF25/75), reactance indices in impulse oscillometry (X5Hz, X10Hz), total lung capacity (TLC) measured in single breath carbon monoxide uptake, markers of air-trapping in body plethysmography (RV, RV/TLC), and the diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide. We also observed significant differences in the aforementioned PFT variables between the patient groups divided based on perfusion scores. We noted a correlation between markers of functional lung deficits measured by the MRI and PFTs in CF children. MRI perfusion abnormalities were reflected sooner in the course of the disease than PFT abnormalities.

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