4.3 Article

Importance of computed tomography in defining segmental disease in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension

期刊

ERJ OPEN RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00461-2020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Radiological assessment of patients with chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) is critical to decide whether patients should be treated with pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). Although computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) is increasingly used for decision making in CTEPH, the value of CTPA to predict surgical findings and outcome has never been explored. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive patients with high-quality CTPA undergoing PEA for CTEPH between May 2015 and December 2017. The most proximal level of disease in the pulmonary artery on CTPA was classified by two blinded radiologists as level 1 (main pulmonary artery), 2a (lobar pulmonary artery), 2b (origin of basal segmental pulmonary artery), 3 (segmental pulmonary artery) or 4 (predominantly subsegmental pulmonary artery). Results: CTPA demonstrated level 1 in 20%, level 2a in 43%, level 2b in 11%, level 3 in 23% and level 4 in 3%. A majority of males presented with level 1 (55%) and level 2 (57%), and a majority of females (83%) with level 3 (p=0.01). Levels 3 and 4 were associated with longer duration of circulatory arrest (p=0.03) and higher frequency of Jamieson type III disease at surgery (p<0.0001). Requirement for targeted pulmonary hypertension therapy after PEA was 28% at 3 years in level 2b/3/4 compared with 6% in level 2a and 13% in level 1 (p=0.002). Level 2b/3/4 was an independent predictor for targeted pulmonary hypertension therapy after PEA (hazard ratio 4.23, 95% CI 1.24-14.39; p=0.02). Conclusions: High-quality CTPA provides accurate evaluation of CTEPH patients. The level of disease on CTPA can help guide peri-operative planning and post-operative monitoring.

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