4.4 Article

Pulmonary pathological features in coronavirus associated severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 260-265

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2003.013276

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) became a worldwide outbreak with a mortality of 9.2%. This new human emergent infectious disease is dominated by severe lower respiratory illness and is aetiologically linked to a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Methods: Pulmonary pathology and clinical correlates were investigated in seven patients who died of SARS in whom there was a strong epidemiological link. Investigations include a review of clinical features, morphological assessment, histochemical and immunohistochemical stainings, ultrastructural study, and virological investigations in postmortem tissue. Results: Positive viral culture for coronavirus was detected in most premortem nasopharyngeal aspirate specimens (five of six) and postmortem lung tissues (two of seven). Viral particles, consistent with coronavirus, could be detected in lung pneumocytes in most of the patients. These features suggested that pneumocytes are probably the primary target of infection. The pathological features were dominated by diffuse alveolar damage, with the presence of multinucleated pneumocytes. Fibrogranulation tissue proliferation in small airways and airspaces (bronchiolitis obliterans organising pneumonia-like lesions) in subpleural locations was also seen in some patients. Conclusions: Viable SARS-CoV could be isolated from postmortem tissues. Postmortem examination allows tissue to be sampled for virological investigations and ultrastructural examination, and when coupled with the appropriate lung morphological changes, is valuable to confirm the diagnosis of SARS-CoV, particularly in clinically unapparent or suspicious but unconfirmed cases.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available