Olsen Høgni Janus Bjarnason, Mortensen Jann
Department of Clinical Physiology and Nuclear Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Eur Clin Respir J. 2024 Jul 29;11(1):2381898. doi: 10.1080/20018525.2024.2381898. eCollection 2024.
Whole-body plethysmography is the preferred method for measuring the static lung volumes: total lung capacity (TLC), functional residual capacity (FRC) and residual volume (RV), as it also incorporates trapped gas - a common finding in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Quantitative computed tomography (CT) is a promising alternative to plethysmography, which can be challenging to perform for patients with severely impaired lung function. The present systematic review explores the agreement between lung volumes measured by plethysmography and CT, as well as the attempts being made to optimize alignment between these two methods.
A literature search was performed on the PubMed database using the block search strategy. Articles were included if they provided both CT based and plethysmography based TLC. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist.
22 articles were included. On average, CT-derived TLC (CT-TLC) was 709 mL lower compared to plethysmography TLC (p-TLC) with a 12.1% deviation from the reference standard, p-TLC. This discrepancy (ΔTLC) appeared slightly larger in obstructive patients (obstructive: 781 mL, non-obstructive: 609 mL), whereas percent deviation was slightly smaller (obstructive: 11.4%, non-obstructive: 13.5%). CT-based RV analyses primarily based on COPD patients measured 603 mL higher than plethysmography (p-RV) with 17.8% deviation from p-RV. Studies utilizing spirometry-gating for CT acquisition reported good agreement between modalities (ΔTLC: 70-280 mL), and one study demonstrated noticeable improvements compared to conventional breath-hold instructions in an otherwise identical study setting.
CT quantifications routinely underestimate TLC and overestimate RV in comparison to plethysmography. Spirometry gating reduces the level of disagreement and can be of assistance when patients are already undergoing CT. However, further studies are needed to confirm these results.
全身体积描记法是测量静态肺容量(总肺容量(TLC)、功能残气量(FRC)和残气量(RV))的首选方法,因为它还能纳入潴留气体,这在慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)中很常见。定量计算机断层扫描(CT)是体积描记法的一种有前景的替代方法,对于肺功能严重受损的患者,体积描记法可能难以实施。本系统评价探讨了通过体积描记法和CT测量的肺容量之间的一致性,以及为优化这两种方法之间的对齐所做的尝试。
使用分块搜索策略在PubMed数据库上进行文献检索。如果文章同时提供基于CT和基于体积描记法的TLC,则将其纳入。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估2(QUADAS-2)清单评估偏倚风险。
纳入22篇文章。平均而言,与体积描记法TLC(p-TLC)相比,CT衍生的TLC(CT-TLC)低709mL,与参考标准p-TLC的偏差为12.1%。这种差异(ΔTLC)在阻塞性患者中似乎略大(阻塞性:781mL,非阻塞性:609mL),而百分比偏差略小(阻塞性:11.4%,非阻塞性:13.5%)。主要基于COPD患者的基于CT的RV分析比体积描记法(p-RV)高603mL,与p-RV的偏差为17.8%。利用肺活量计门控进行CT采集的研究报告了两种方法之间的良好一致性(ΔTLC:70-280mL),并且一项研究表明,在其他条件相同的研究环境中,与传统屏气指令相比有明显改善。
与体积描记法相比,CT定量通常会低估TLC并高估RV。肺活量计门控减少了不一致程度,并且当患者已经在进行CT检查时可能会有所帮助。然而,需要进一步的研究来证实这些结果。