机构地区:[1]皖西卫生职业学院附属医院影像科,安徽六安237008 [2]皖西卫生职业学院附属医院呼吸内科,安徽六安237008
出 处:《临床肺科杂志》2025年第5期698-705,共8页Journal of Clinical Pulmonary Medicine
摘 要:目的探讨慢性阻塞性肺疾病(简称慢阻肺)患者的CT肺气肿表型及其定量指标与肺功能和患者预后的相关性。方法纳入2020年1月-2023年6月收治的180例慢阻肺患者,根据其CT检查所示的肺气肿表现与支气管壁变化特征,分为A型组(n=67)、E型组(n=60)和M型组(n=53)。分析所有患者的CT定量指标与肺功能指标及其相关性;记录患者随访1年期间的急性加重情况,并分析其独立影响因素。结果肺功能指标方面,A型组患者的FEV_(1)/FVC和FEV_(1)%pred水平两项指标均显著高于E型组和M型组,E型组的FEV_(1)/FVC和FEV_(1)%pred水平显著高于M型组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);A型组患者的RV/TLC比率显著低于E型组和M型组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。定量指标方面,A型组的Vin水平显著高于E型组和M型组,E型组的Vin水平显著高于M型组,上述差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);A型组的Vex水平显著低于E型组和M型组(P<0.05),E型组的Vex水平显著低于M型组,上述差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);A型组的EIex水平显著低于E型组和M型组(P<0.05),E型组的EIex水平显著低于M型组,上述差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。Pearson相关性分析显示,Vin与FEV_(1)/FVC和FEV_(1)%pred呈正相关,与RV/TLC呈负相关;Vex和EIex均与FEV_(1)/FVC和FEV_(1)%pred呈负相关,与RV/TLC呈正相关。A型组1年内慢阻肺急性加重的发生率为5.97%,显著低于E型组的18.33%和M型组的22.64%(P=0.027)。多因素Logistic回归分析显示,FEV_(1)/FVC和CT肺气肿表型均是慢阻肺患者随访1年急性加重的独立影响因素(P<0.05)。结论CT肺气肿表型及其定量参数与慢阻肺患者的肺功能存在明确的相关性;此外,FEV_(1)/FVC比值以及CT肺气肿表型均是慢阻肺患者出院后1年内急性加重的独立影响因素。Objective To explore the correlation between CT emphysema phenotypes,their quantitative indices,lung function,and patient prognosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD).Methods A total of 180 COPD patients admitted from January 2020 to June 2023 were enrolled and classified into Group A(n=67),Group E(n=60),and Group M(n=53)based on their CT scan features of emphysema and bronchial wall changes.CT quantitative indices and lung function parameters were analyzed for all patients,and their correlations were examined.Acute exacerbations during one-year follow-up were recorded,and independent influencing factors were analyzed.Results In terms of pulmonary function indicators,the FEV_(1)/FVC and FEV_(1)%predicted levels in Group A were significantly higher than those in Groups E and M.The FEV_(1)/FVC and FEV_(1)%predicted levels in Group E were significantly higher than those in Group M,with all differences being statistically significant(P<0.05).The RV/TLC ratio in Group A was significantly lower than that in Groups E and M,with the differences also being statistically significant(P<0.05).Regarding quantitative indicators,the Vin level in Group A was significantly higher than that in Groups E and M,while the Vin level in Group E was significantly higher than that in Group M,with all differences being statistically significant(P<0.05).The Vex level in Group A was significantly lowerthan that in Groups E and M(P<0.05),and the Vex level in Group E was significantly lower than that in Group M,with all differences being statistically significant(P<0.05).The EIex level in Group A was significantly lower than that in Groups E and M(P<0.05),and the EIex level in Group E was significantly lower than that in Group M,with all differences being statistically significant(P<0.05).Pearson correlation analysis showed that Vin was positively correlated with FEV_(1)/FVC and FEV_(1)%pred and negatively correlated with RV/TLC.Both Vex and EIex were negatively correlated with FEV_(1)/FVC and FEV_(1)%pred and positiv
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...