4.6 Article

Differentiating tuberculosis from sarcoidosis by sonographic characteristics of lymph nodes on endobronchial ultrasonography: A study of 165 patients

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.01.028

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The differential diagnosis of sarcoidosis and tuberculosis is difficult, especially in countries with a high tuberculosis burden. We hypothesized that sonographic features on endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS) would help in differentiating tuberculosis from sarcoidosis. In this study, the endosonographic features of tuberculosis and sarcoidosis are compared. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with intrathoracic lymphadenopathy who underwent EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), and were finally diagnosed with sarcoidosis or tuberculosis. Sonographic features such as size, shape (round or oval), margin (distinct or indistinct), echogenicity (heterogeneous or homogeneous), presence or absence of a central hilar structure, and coagulation necrosis sign were recorded and compared in the 2 groups. Results: During the study period, 249 EBUS-guided TBNA procedures were performed and a diagnosis of sarcoidosis (n = 118) or tuberculosis (n = 47) was made in 165 patients. A total of 358 lymph node stations were examined. Heterogeneous echotexture (53.4% vs 12.6%, P < .001) and coagulation necrosis (26.1% vs 3.3%; P < .001) were significantly higher in tuberculous lymph nodes. A combination of a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) and either heterogeneous echotexture or coagulation necrosis sign had specificity of 98% and positive predictive value of 91% for a diagnosis of tuberculosis. Conclusions: Sonographic features of heterogeneous echotexture or coagulation necrosis in the lymph nodes on EBUS are fairly specific for tuberculosis. Along with a positive TST, these features strongly favor a diagnosis of tuberculosis over sarcoidosis.

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