Table 3.
Correlation between PA diameter measured by CT, PA:A ratio, and hemodynamics
Reference | Study population, n | COPD subjects (%) | CT metric | Endpoint | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ng et al63 | 50 (heterogeneous) | 8 (16%) | PA | mPAP | r=0.74* |
PVR | r=0.55* | ||||
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.74* | |||
PVR | r=0.59* | ||||
Mahammedi et al61 | 298 (heterogeneous) | 17 (5.7%) | PA | mPAP | r=0.51* |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.54* | |||
Boerrigter et al64 | 69 (PAH) | 0 | PA | mPAP | r=0.58* |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.71* | |||
Devaraj et al68 | 77 (heterogeneous) | 5 (6%) | PA | mPAP | r2=0.45* |
PA:A | mPAP | r2=0.45* | |||
PA:A + RVSP | mPAP | r2=0.55* | |||
Chan et al69 | 108 (hospitalized) | 2 (2%) | PA >29 mm | mPAP >25 mmHg | OR 4.8* |
PA:A >1 | mPAP >25 mmHg | OR 9.1* | |||
Devaraj et al65 | 30 (ILD) | – | PA | mPAP | r=0.23 |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.54** | |||
47 (heterogeneous) | 5 (10.6%) | PA | mPAP | r=0.67* | |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.72* | |||
Zisman et al66 | 65 (IPF) | 0 | PA | mPAP | r=0.148 |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.203 | |||
Alhamad et al67 | 100 (ILD) | – | PA | mPAP | r=0.301* |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.434* | |||
34 (heterogeneous) | 8 (23.5%) | PA | mPAP | r=0.701* | |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.626* | |||
Heinrich et al73 | 60 (CTEPH) | 0 | PA | mPAP | r=0.42* |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.48* | |||
PVR | r=0.29** | ||||
Iyer et al70 | 60 (COPD) | 100% | PA | mPAP | r=0.60* |
PA:A | mPAP | r=0.56* |
Notes:
P<0.01;
P<0.05.
Abbreviations: mPAP, mean pulmonary artery pressure; PVR, pulmonary vascular resistance; r, Pearson correlation coefficient; PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension; ILD, interstitial lung disease; IPF, idiopathic pulmonary fbrosis; CTEPH, chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension; OR, odds ratio; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; PA, pulmonary artery; PA:A, pulmonary artery to ascending aorta; CT, computed tomography.