BackgroundTransbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) has been introduced as an alternative to surgical lung biopsy (SLB) in the diagnostics of interstitial lung diseases (ILD). Despite controversy on safety, TBLC is increasingly implemented in ILD centers with an apparent diagnostic yield comparable to SLB. The aim of this study was to assess TBLC implementation experiences from a tertiary Danish ILD center regarding diagnosis, complications, and learning curves for TBLC performance.MethodsTBLC was prospectively performed in a cohort of patients with unclassifiable ILD based on a preceding multidisciplinary clinical and radiological revision. TBLC was performed as an outpatient procedure with the patients in general anesthesia using a flexible bronchoscope with 1.9 or 2.4 mm cryoprobes. Learning curves for TBLC performance were calculated using cumulated sum (CUSUM) scores for diagnostic yield, pneumothorax, and bleeding.Results From February 2017 to March 2020 141 patients (86 (61%) men, median age 69 years [IQR, 60 years to 74 years]) had TBLC performed. A histological and confirmative diagnosis was made in 101 patients (75.2%) and 124 patients (87.9%, i.e. clinical diagnostic yield), respectively, in whom idiopathic interstitial pneumonias constituted the majority (67.3%) of the clinical diagnoses. We observed 2 deaths (1.4%) within 30 days of TBLC, but no procedure-related mortality or severe bleeding. Moderate bleeding occurred in 23 patients (16.3%), pneumothorax in 21 patients (14.9%) with only 14 patients (9.9%) requiring a pleural drain. Based on the CUSUM score analysis, the diagnostic yield obtained was satisfactory throughout the period.ConclusionThis study reports experiences of outpatient TBLC implementation in a tertiary referral ILD center from the largest investigated TBLC cohort in Scandinavia The diagnostic yield and prevalence of complications obtained by TBLC from this single center study on unclassifiable ILD support outpatient TBLC as a valuable and safe alternative to SLB to diagnose ILD in well-selected patients. The learning curves for TBLC were acceptable in the hands of experienced bronchoscopists.Of note, the majority of the abstract details have been presented as a poster at the European Respiratory Society’s Congress in Madrid, Spain in 2019 (European Respiratory Journal 2019 54: PA3107; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.congress-2019.PA3107).

Background Basic thoracic ultrasound is being used more frequently by clinicians in several settings due to its high diagnostic accuracy for many common causes of respiratory failure and dyspnoea. However, ultrasound examinations are operator-dependent, and sufficient competences are needed to obtain high sensitivity and specificity of examinations. Additionally, it is crucial for ultrasound operators to perceive the competence to interpret the images and integrate them into the patient history and other examinations. This study aims to explore and gather validity evidence for an objective structured clinical examination test of basic thoracic ultrasound competences and establish a pass/fail score. Methods An expert panel created the test which included two theoretical and five practical stations representing cases with different diagnoses that cause respiratory symptoms and which are possible to establish by basic thoracic ultrasound. Twenty-five participants with different levels of experience in basic thoracic ultrasound completed the test. Data of the test scores were used for item analysis, and exploring validity evidence was done according to Messick’s framework which is recommended. The contrasting groups' standard setting method was used to establish a pass/fail score. Results The summarised internal consistency reliability was high with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.87. The novice group (n = 4) had a mean test score of 42 ± 10.1 points, the intermediate group (n = 8) scored 79.1 ± 8.1 points, and the experienced group (n = 13) 89.0 ± 6.2 points (one-way ANOVA, p < 0.001). A pass/fail score of 71 points was thus derived (maximum test score = 105 points). Conclusion We developed a test for the assessment of clinical competences in basic thoracic ultrasound with solid validity evidence, and a pass/fail standard with no false positives or false negatives.

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The value of pre-booked repeated thoracentesis in patients with recurrent pleural effusion is reliant on the estimation of time to next drainage. Identifying factors associated with rapid pleural fluid recurrence could be supportive. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> We aimed to evaluate the ability of the patient and physician to predict the time to next therapeutic thoracentesis and to identify characteristics associated with rapid pleural fluid recurrence. <b><i>Method:</i></b> In a prospective, observational study, patients with recurrent unilateral pleural effusion and the physician were to predict the time to next symptom-guided therapeutic thoracentesis. Primary outcome was difference between days to actual thoracentesis and days predicted by the patient and the physician. Factors associated with pleural fluid recurrence within 60-day follow-up were assessed using Cox regression analysis. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 98 patients were included, 71% with malignant pleural effusion. Patients’ and physicians’ predictions numerically deviated by 6 days from the actual number of days to re-thoracentesis (IQR 2–12 and 2–13, respectively). On multivariate analyses, factors associated with increased hazard of pleural fluid recurrence included daily fluid production (HR 1.35 [1.16–1.59], <i>p</i> &#x3e; 0.001) and large effusion size (HR 2.76 [1.23–6.19], <i>p</i> = 0.01). Septations were associated with decreased hazard (HR 0.48 [0.24–0.96], <i>p</i> = 0.04). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Patients and physicians were equally unable to predict the time to next therapeutic thoracentesis. Daily fluid production and large effusion size were associated with increased risk of rapid pleural fluid recurrence, while septations were associated with a decreased risk. This may guide patients and physicians in when to expect a need for therapeutic thoracentesis.