不同新型冠状病毒株CT表现差异

IF 0.7 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Aleksandar Ivkovic, Tamara Milosavljevic, Ivana Svilarov, Stevan Ivkovic, Dusan Ivkovic
{"title":"不同新型冠状病毒株CT表现差异","authors":"Aleksandar Ivkovic, Tamara Milosavljevic, Ivana Svilarov, Stevan Ivkovic, Dusan Ivkovic","doi":"10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.pa3526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<b>Purpose:</b> To explore the CT findings and pneumonia progression pattern of the Alpha, Delta, Omicron variants and subtypes of SARS-CoV-2 by comparing them with the pre-existing wild type. Method: In this retrospective comparative study, a total of 15874 patients with COVID-19 were included: 1281 patients with wild type (748 men, 52.6 years), 7945 with Alpha variant (4972 men, 46.2), 4233 with Delta variant (2548 men) and 2415 with Omicron and subtypes (1301 man, 44.2). Chest CT evaluation included opacities and repairing changes as well as lesion distribution and laterality. Chest CT severity score was also calculated. These parameters were statistically compared across the variants. <b>Results:</b> Ground glass opacity (GGO), crazy paving, subpleural fibrosis with consolidation and repairing changes were more frequent in the order of Delta variant, Alpha variant, Omicron variant, and wild type throughout the disease course. Delta variant showed GGO and crazy paving with consolidation more noticeable than did the others on days 1–8). Wild strain had more unclear CT presentation. Alfa strain was the first strain with sharp CT presentation. Delta strain was with fast development of subpleural fibrosis. Omicron strain had smaller areas of CGO. Total lung CT severity scores of Delta variant were higher than those of wild type on days 1–14 and that of Alpha variant on days 1–4. Alpha strain had higher severity score on days 15 to 21 with more complications. Omicron strain severity were mostly in range 0-5 and 18-23 with small percent in range 6-17. <b>Conclusions:</b> There was difference in the CT findings and severity scores between all different types and subtypes.","PeriodicalId":34850,"journal":{"name":"Imaging","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CT imaging differences between different Covid-19 strains\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandar Ivkovic, Tamara Milosavljevic, Ivana Svilarov, Stevan Ivkovic, Dusan Ivkovic\",\"doi\":\"10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.pa3526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<b>Purpose:</b> To explore the CT findings and pneumonia progression pattern of the Alpha, Delta, Omicron variants and subtypes of SARS-CoV-2 by comparing them with the pre-existing wild type. Method: In this retrospective comparative study, a total of 15874 patients with COVID-19 were included: 1281 patients with wild type (748 men, 52.6 years), 7945 with Alpha variant (4972 men, 46.2), 4233 with Delta variant (2548 men) and 2415 with Omicron and subtypes (1301 man, 44.2). Chest CT evaluation included opacities and repairing changes as well as lesion distribution and laterality. Chest CT severity score was also calculated. These parameters were statistically compared across the variants. <b>Results:</b> Ground glass opacity (GGO), crazy paving, subpleural fibrosis with consolidation and repairing changes were more frequent in the order of Delta variant, Alpha variant, Omicron variant, and wild type throughout the disease course. Delta variant showed GGO and crazy paving with consolidation more noticeable than did the others on days 1–8). Wild strain had more unclear CT presentation. Alfa strain was the first strain with sharp CT presentation. Delta strain was with fast development of subpleural fibrosis. Omicron strain had smaller areas of CGO. Total lung CT severity scores of Delta variant were higher than those of wild type on days 1–14 and that of Alpha variant on days 1–4. Alpha strain had higher severity score on days 15 to 21 with more complications. Omicron strain severity were mostly in range 0-5 and 18-23 with small percent in range 6-17. <b>Conclusions:</b> There was difference in the CT findings and severity scores between all different types and subtypes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Imaging\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.pa3526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.congress-2023.pa3526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:探讨SARS-CoV-2 α型、δ型、欧米克隆型及亚型的CT表现和肺炎进展模式,并与已有的野生型进行比较。方法:本研究共纳入15874例COVID-19患者,其中野生型1281例(男性748例,52.6岁),α型7945例(男性4972例,46.2例),Delta型4233例(男性2548例),Omicron及其亚型2415例(男性1301例,44.2例)。胸部CT评价包括阴影、修复改变、病变分布及侧边性。同时计算胸部CT严重程度评分。这些参数在不同的变体之间进行统计比较。结果:在整个病程中,Delta型、Alpha型、Omicron型、野生型以磨玻璃样混浊(GGO)、疯狂铺装、胸膜下纤维化伴实变和修复改变的发生率较高。δ型在第1-8天比其他型表现出更明显的GGO和疯狂铺装和固结。野生株CT表现较不清楚。α菌株是第一个具有清晰CT表现的菌株。δ型菌株胸膜下纤维化发展迅速。单粒菌株的CGO面积较小。δ变异组肺CT总严重程度评分1 ~ 14 d高于野生型组,α变异组1 ~ 4 d高于野生型组。α菌株在15 ~ 21天的严重程度评分较高,并发症较多。Omicron菌株严重程度大都在0-5和18-23之间,6-17之间比例较小。结论:不同类型及亚型间CT表现及严重程度评分存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
CT imaging differences between different Covid-19 strains
Purpose: To explore the CT findings and pneumonia progression pattern of the Alpha, Delta, Omicron variants and subtypes of SARS-CoV-2 by comparing them with the pre-existing wild type. Method: In this retrospective comparative study, a total of 15874 patients with COVID-19 were included: 1281 patients with wild type (748 men, 52.6 years), 7945 with Alpha variant (4972 men, 46.2), 4233 with Delta variant (2548 men) and 2415 with Omicron and subtypes (1301 man, 44.2). Chest CT evaluation included opacities and repairing changes as well as lesion distribution and laterality. Chest CT severity score was also calculated. These parameters were statistically compared across the variants. Results: Ground glass opacity (GGO), crazy paving, subpleural fibrosis with consolidation and repairing changes were more frequent in the order of Delta variant, Alpha variant, Omicron variant, and wild type throughout the disease course. Delta variant showed GGO and crazy paving with consolidation more noticeable than did the others on days 1–8). Wild strain had more unclear CT presentation. Alfa strain was the first strain with sharp CT presentation. Delta strain was with fast development of subpleural fibrosis. Omicron strain had smaller areas of CGO. Total lung CT severity scores of Delta variant were higher than those of wild type on days 1–14 and that of Alpha variant on days 1–4. Alpha strain had higher severity score on days 15 to 21 with more complications. Omicron strain severity were mostly in range 0-5 and 18-23 with small percent in range 6-17. Conclusions: There was difference in the CT findings and severity scores between all different types and subtypes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Imaging
Imaging MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信