PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 20, 2026American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine0 citations

D23-14 CT-Sparing ILD Monitoring: An Evidence-Derived Algorithm Integrating Lung Ultrasound, Digital Auscultation, and FVC Trajectories

View Full Paper
MBM BastaKBK BastaMJM James

Key Points

  • The study aims to establish a pragmatic algorithm that reduces the need for HRCT in monitoring fibrotic ILD while maintaining safety.
  • Conducted a systematic review of 23 studies on LUS, digital auscultation, and FVC trajectories on adults with ILD or CTD-ILD.
  • Developed an evidence-derived algorithm for monitoring based on identified thresholds and decision analysis.
  • Evaluated diagnostic accuracy and longitudinal associations against HRCT findings.
  • LUS B-lines ≥10 showed sensitivity 96.3%, specificity 92.3% for significant ILD versus HRCT.
  • Digital auscultation achieved 82.6% accuracy, with sensitivity 88.1% and specificity 78.6% against HRCT.
  • FVC decline linked to progression, advocating its use as a principal clinical endpoint.

Abstract

Abstract Rationale Repeated high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is the monitoring anchor in fibrotic ILD but imposes radiation, cost, and access burdens. We asked whether validated non-ionizing signals—lung ultrasound (LUS) B-lines/pleural changes, digitally detected “Velcro” crackles, and forced vital capacity (FVC) trajectories—support a pragmatic algorithm to reduce discretionary HRCT without sacrificing safety. Prior studies report strong LUS-HRCT concordance and high diagnostic accuracy of digital crackle detection; FVC decline remains a robust progression marker. Methods We registered a protocol and conducted a PRISMA-conform systematic review (MEDLINE/Embase/Cochrane/CINAHL, inception-September 2025). Inclusion: adults with ILD or CTD-ILD; index tests LUS and/or digital auscultation and/or longitudinal FVC; reference HRCT or adjudicated progression. Outcomes: diagnostic accuracy, agreement, and longitudinal associations. Two reviewers screened/extracted; risk of bias (QUADAS-2/QUIPS). Using prespecified accuracy thresholds from individual studies, we synthesized an evidence-derived “CT-Minimal” clinic algorithm and performed a rule-in/rule-out decision analysis anchored to reported cut-points (no new patient recruitment). Results Twenty-three studies met criteria. Key reproducible anchors were: (1) LUS B-lines ≥10 identified significant ILD versus HRCT with sensitivity 96.3% and specificity 92.3% in systemic sclerosis (Warrick≥7), with strong LUS-HRCT correlation (ρ≈0.82-0.96). Examination time ≈9 minutes. (2) Digital auscultation (VECTOR) detected CTD-ILD with accuracy 82.6% (sensitivity 88.1%, specificity 78.6%) against HRCT. (3) Physician agreement for digitally recorded crackles in fibrotic ILD was moderate-to-good (κ 0.57 overall; intra-rater up to 0.87), supporting longitudinal use. (4) FVC decline is firmly linked to progression/mortality; contemporary cohorts and registries validate FVC change as the principal clinical end point. New contribution: We operationalized a CT-Minimal algorithm: defer HRCT when all are true—LUS 10 B-lines without pleural irregularity; negative digital crackle screen; no absolute FVC decline ≥5% over 6-12 months—while obtaining HRCT when any criterion is positive. Mapping these thresholds onto the accuracy estimates above indicates high rule-out safety for significant ILD and provides a structured pathway to reserve HRCT for progression signals. Conclusion High-quality studies show that LUS, digital auscultation, and FVC trajectories carry actionable signals in fibrotic ILD. An evidence-derived algorithm can rationalize HRCT use and is ready for prospective validation as a clinic workflow to cut radiation exposure while maintaining vigilance for progression. This abstract is funded by: none

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Basta et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0d4f19f03e14405aa9a52fhttps://doi.org/10.1093/ajrccm/aamag162.2849
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper