4.7 Article

Patterns of lung disease in a normal smoking population - Are emphysema and airflow obstruction found together?

期刊

CHEST
卷 120, 期 3, 页码 743-747

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1378/chest.120.3.743

关键词

airflow obstruction; COPD; emphysema; smoking

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study objectives: We determined whether emphysema demonstrated on high-resolution CT (HRCT)scanning in apparently, well smokers is associated with airflow obstruction. Interventions: Lung function testing and limited HRCT scanning. Design: Lung function measurements and scans were analyzed independently of each other. We used analysis of covariance to compare FEV1 and maximum expiratory flow at 50% of vital capacity (MEF50) values after suitable corrections, between subjects with and without parenchymal damage (emphysema and/or reduced carbon monoxide transfer coefficient [KCO]), and to compare indexes of parenchymal damage between subjects with and without airflow obstruction. Setting: Radiology and lung function departments of a district general hospital. Participants: Eighty current cigarette smokers and 20 lifetime nonsmoking control subjects (aged 35 to 65 years) who volunteered following publicity in local media. In all subjects, FEV1 was > 1.5 L; no subjects were known to have lung disease. Measurements and results: FEV1 and MEF50 were measured spirometrically; static lung volumes were measured by helium dilution and body plethysmography; KCO was measured by a single-breath technique. HRCT scans were analyzed for emphysema by two radiologists. Of smokers, 25% had HRCT emphysema, generally mild; 16.3% and 25% had reduced FEV1 and MEF50, respectively; 12.5% had reduced KCO. Smokers with airflow obstruction were not more likely to have parenchymal damage. Smokers with parenchymal damage did not have reduced airway function. Nonsmokers generally had normal airways and parenchyma. Conclusions: Normal smokers with lung damage had either airflow obstruction or parenchymal damage, but not generally both.

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