4.6 Article

Decompression of Enlarged Mediastinal Lymph Nodes Due to Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Causing Severe Airway Obstruction in Children

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 99, 期 4, 页码 1157-1163

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.12.042

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Large airway compression by enlarged tuberculosis (TB) lymph nodes results in life-threatening airway obstruction in a small proportion of children. The indications, safety, and efficacy of TB lymph node decompression are inadequately described. This study aims to describe the indications and efficacy of TB lymph node decompression in children with severe airway compression and investigate variables influencing outcome. Methods. A prospective cohort of children (aged 3 months to 13 years) with life-threatening airway obstruction resulting from TB lymph node compression of the large airways were enrolled. The site and degree of airway obstruction were assessed by bronchoscopy and chest computed tomography scan. Results. Of the 250 children enrolled, 34% (n = 86) required transthoracic lymph node decompression, 29% as an urgent procedure and 71% (n = 63) after failing 1 month of antituberculosis treatment that included glucosteroids. Compression (less than 75%) of the bronchus intermedius (odds ratio 2.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 4.02) and left main bronchus (odds ratio 3.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.73 to 6.83) were the best predictors for lymph node decompression. Human immunodeficiency virus status, drug resistance, and malnutrition were not associated with decompression. Few complications (self-limiting, 8%) or treatment failures (2%) resulted from the decompression. There were no deaths. Conclusions. In one third of children with TB, severe airway obstruction caused by enlarged lymph nodes requires decompression. Transthoracic decompression can be safely performed with low complication, failure, and fatality rates. (C) 2015 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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