Reversibility of trapped air on chest computed tomography in cystic fibrosis patients
European Journal of Radiology , Volume 84 - Issue 6 p. 1184- 1190
Purpose To investigate changes in trapped air volume and distribution over time and compare computed tomography (CT) with pulmonary function tests for determining trapped air. Methods Thirty children contributed two CTs and pulmonary function tests over 2 years. Localized changes in trapped air on CT were assessed using image analysis software, by deforming the CT at timepoint 2 to match timepoint 1, and measuring the volume of stable (TAstable), disappeared (TAdisappeared) and new (TAnew) trapped air as a proportion of total lung volume. We used the difference between total lung capacity measured by plethysmography and helium dilution, residual volume to total lung capacity ratio, forced expiratory flow at 75% of vital capacity, and maximum mid-expiratory flow as pulmonary function test markers of trapped air. Statistical analysis included Wilcoxon's signed rank test and Spearman correlation coefficients. Results Median (range) age at baseline was 11.9 (5-17) years. Median (range) of trapped air was 9.5 (2-33)% at timepoint 1 and 9.0 (0-25)% at timepoint 2 (p = 0.49). Median (range) TAstable, TAdisappeared and TAnew were respectively 3.0 (0-12)%, 5.0 (1-22)% and 7.0 (0-20)%. Trapped air on CT correlated statistically significantly with all pulmonary function measures (p < 0.01), other than residual volume to total lung capacity ratio (p = 0.37). Conclusion Trapped air on CT did not significantly progress over 2 years, may have a substantial stable component, and is significantly correlated with pulmonary function markers.
|Chest CT, Cystic fibrosis, Quantitative measures, Reversibility, Trapped air|
|European Journal of Radiology|
|Organisation||Department of Radiology|
Loeve, M, Rosenow, T, Gorbunova, V, Hop, W.C.J, Tiddens, H.A.W.M, & de Bruijne, M. (2015). Reversibility of trapped air on chest computed tomography in cystic fibrosis patients. European Journal of Radiology, 84(6), 1184–1190. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.02.011