4.6 Article

Lung Ultrasound in Children with Cystic Fibrosis in Comparison with Chest Computed Tomography: A Feasibility Study

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12020376

关键词

lung ultrasound; cystic fibrosis; computed tomography comparison; CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate a newly designed lung ultrasound (LUS) score and compare it with the modified Bhalla CT score in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The results showed a strong correlation between the LUS score and CT score, with higher sensitivity in detecting atelectasis and consolidations. These findings suggest that the LUS score can be a useful tool for the diagnosis and monitoring of CF lung disease in children.
Background: Cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease determines the outcome of this condition. For lung evaluation processes, computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard, but also causes irradiation. Lately, lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven to be reliable for the diagnosis of consolidations, atelectasis, and/or bronchiectasis. The aim of our study was to evaluate the value of a newly conceived LUS score by comparing it to the modified Bhalla CT score. A further aim was to evaluate the correlation between the score and the lung clearance index (LCI). Methods: Patients with CF were screened by LUS, followed by a CT scan. Spearman's test was used for correlations. Results: A total of 98 patients with CF were screened, and 57 were included in the study; their mean age was 11.8 +/- 5.5 (mean +/- SD) years. The mean LUS score was 5.88 +/- 5.4 SD. The LUS CF score had a very strong correlation with the CT score of rs = 0.87 (p = 0.000). LUS showed a good sensibility for detecting atelectasis (Se = 83.7%) and consolidations (Se = 94.4%). A lower Se (77.7%) and Sp (9%) were found for cylindrical bronchiectasis. Conclusion: Our study shows that LUS and the lung CF score are parameters that can be used with a complementary role in the diagnosis and monitoring of CF lung disease in children.

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