4.5 Article

International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation consensus statement for the standardization of bronchoalveolar lavage in lung transplantation

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 1171-1190

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2020.07.006

Keywords

lung transplantation; bronchoalveolar lavage; standardization; methodology; bronchial wash; donor bronchoscopy; pediatric bronchoscopy

Funding

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [P300PB_164733, P3P3PB_164734/1]
  2. University Hospital of Lausanne (Fond de Perfectionnement)
  3. Ligue Pulmonaire Suisse [2018-16]
  4. University of Lausanne
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [P300PB_164733, P3P3PB_164734] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a key clinical and research tool in lung transplantation (LTx). How ever, BAL collection and processing are not standardized across LTx centers. This International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation-supported consensus document on BAL standardization aims to clarify definitions and propose common approaches to improve clinical and research practice standards. The following 9 areas are covered: (1) bronchoscopy procedure and BAL collection, (2) sample handling, (3) sample processing for microbiology, (4) cytology, (5) research, (6) microbiome, (7) sample inventory/tracking, (8) donor bronchoscopy, and (9) pediatric considerations. This consensus document aims to harmonize clinical and research practices for BAL collection and processing in LTx. The overarching goal is to enhance standardization and multicenter collaboration within the interna-tional LTx community and enable improvement and development of new BAL-based diagnostics. (C) 2020 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available