4.5 Article

Clinical Characteristics and Prognosis of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease with Different Radiographic Patterns

期刊

LUNG
卷 189, 期 6, 页码 467-474

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00408-011-9321-4

关键词

Keywords Nontuberculous mycobacteria; Radiographic pattern; Tuberculosis

资金

  1. Institute for Biotechnology and Medicine Industry, Taiwan
  2. National Taiwan University Hospital [NTUH.100-N1685]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical characteristics and prognostic impact of radiographic patterns of patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease (NTM-LD) are rarely evaluated. Patients with NTM-LD from 2007 to 2009 in a single medical center in Taiwan were identified. Their radiographic patterns were reviewed and classified into cavitary, bronchiectatic, or consolidative. They were also compared to patients with cavitary pulmonary tuberculosis (TB-LD). Of 481 NTM-LD patients identified, 62, 134, and 56 patients were categorized into cavitary, bronchiectatic, and consolidative groups, respectively. Compared with 180 TB-LD patients, cavitary NTM-LD had male predominance and was associated with higher grades of sputum acid-fast smear (3+ or 4+), prior pulmonary TB, and poor baseline pulmonary function. NTM-LD patients with consolidative pattern were likely to have underlying comorbidity, the highest blood leukocyte count and C-reactive protein, and lowest albumin. In all NTM-LD, the consolidative pattern was independently associated with poor prognosis for 6-month survival. Patients with cavitary Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC)-LD had worse 6-month survival than those with bronchiectatic pattern. In Taiwan, NTM-LD patients with consolidative pattern have the worst prognosis while patients with cavitary pattern have worse survival than those with bronchiectasis in MAC-LD. Because varying radiographic patterns represent different prognoses, understanding the characteristics of NTM-LD patients with different radiographic patterns complements clinical practice.

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

4.5
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