4.6 Article

Clinical Impact of Vertical Artifacts Changing with Frequency in Lung Ultrasound

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11030401

关键词

B-line; lung ultrasonography; LUS; interstitial lung disease; systemic sclerosis; pulmonary fibrosis; oedema

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that using both linear and convex transducers resulted in the best accuracy in evaluating vertical artifact changes with frequencies of 2 MHz and 6 MHz, as well as detecting pleural line abnormalities. This approach had a high specificity and sensitivity in differentiating pulmonary edema from pulmonary fibrosis.
Background: This study concerns the application of lung ultrasound (LUS) for the evaluation of the significance of vertical artifact changes with frequency and pleural line abnormalities in differentiating pulmonary edema from pulmonary fibrosis. Study Design and Methods: The study was designed as a diagnostic test. Having qualified patients for the study, an ultrasound examination was performed, consistent with a predetermined protocol, and employing convex and linear transducers. We investigated the possibility of B-line artifact conversion depending on the set frequency (2 MHz and 6 MHz), and examined pleural line abnormalities. Results: The study group comprised 32 patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) (and fibrosis) and 30 patients with pulmonary edema. In total, 1941 cineloops were obtained from both groups and analyzed. The employment of both types of transducers (linear and convex) was most effective (specificity 91%, specificity 97%, positive predictive value (PPV) 97%, negative predictive value (NPV) 91%, LR(+) 27,19, LR(-) 0.097, area under curve (AUC) = 0.936, p = 7 x 10(-6)). Interpretation: The best accuracy in differentiating the etiology of B-line artifacts was obtained with the use of both types of transducers (linear and convex), complemented with the observation of the conversion of B-line artifacts to Z-line.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据