Results from a Novel Ongoing Prospective Screening Algorithm for Patients at risk for Interstitial Lung Disease
Résumé fourni par la source
Rationale: To date there is no validated screening algorithm that informs on chest CT timing in patients at risk for interstitial lung disease (ILD). Method: We initiated a novel prospective ILD screening algorithm. At inclusion all patients received a non-contrast prone HR-chest CT and thorough clinical investigation. ILD screening included a decline in functional vital capacity (FVC), diffusion capacity (DLCO), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), NYHA class or new velcro rales/dry cough (Fig. 1). Results: From 09/2021-10/2024 we recruited 309 patients without ILD (age 55 [IQR 47-64]yrs, 90% female). Baseline FVC, DLCO%sB and 6MWT for the total cohort were 99±16%pred, 85±18%pred and 426 (IQR 393-474)m, respectively and 72% were in NYHA class I. To date, N=262, n=182 and n=81 patients had 1, 2 or ≥3 follow-up visits, including N=53, N=41 and N=24 follow-up chest CTs, respectively. During follow-up, 2 deaths occurred, 42 patients developed mild (<10% affected lung area) and 5 significant ILD (>10%; N=4 SSc, N=1 RA), which occured median 22 (IQR 12-24)months after inclusion. In these 5 patients, FVC, DLCO and 6MWD declined by average -14%, -2% and -19m from baseline, respectively, 2 patients developed new velcro rales, while NYHA class was unchanged. Conclusion: A systematic screening algorithm in patients at-risk for ILD may support early ILD detection, potentially reducing the need for routine annual chest CTs. erj;66/suppl_69/PA3009/F1 F1 F1
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Results from a Novel Ongoing Prospective Screening Algorithm for Patients at risk for Interstitial Lung Disease
- Date Crossref
- 27/09/2025
- Éditeur
- European Respiratory Society
- Type
- proceedings-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.