4.3 Article

Gender differences of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease associated with manifestations on HRCT

期刊

CLINICAL RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 28-35

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/crj.12297

关键词

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); gender; high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT); pulmonary function test (PFT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimsPatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have been shown to have significant gender differences in terms of susceptibility, severity and response to therapy. We hypothesized that this was due to differences in functional and pathologic changes in the airway, which can be revealed by high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) in addition to pulmonary function test (PFT). MethodsA total of 84 patients with COPD were enrolled in the study. Within 1 week of enrollment, a history of each patient's current illness was obtained. PFT and chest HRCT scan were performed. ResultsThe patients were classified as phenotype A, E and M based on the chest HRCT presentations. No significant gender differences were found in COPD severity ((2)=4.993, P=0.172). Male patients have more smoking history and smaller average age compared with female patients. Female patients showed a significantly higher FEV1/FVC, lower inspiratory capacity and milder residual volume/total lung capacity than that of male patients. Based on the HRCT results, more males were classified as phenotype M, whereas females tended to be phenotype A. Males had a greater grade of low attenuation areas and were more likely to show evidence of emphysema on a HRCT scan than females ((2)=15.373, P=0.001), whereas females had less airway wall thickening than males, although this change had no statistical significance. ((2)=0.163, P=0.922). ConclusionGender differences of COPD patients were seen in ages of onset, smoking history, and PFT and HRCT presentations. The use of HRCT imaging indicates that there are significant gender differences in the clinical manifestations of COPD.

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

4.3
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