4.5 Article

Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid characteristics and outcomes of invasively mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Genoa, Italy

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-06015-9

关键词

COVID-19; Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid; Macrophages; Lymphocytes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to describe the cellular characteristics of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, finding that the prominent cells in BALF were neutrophils and macrophages. The percentage of macrophages in BALF upon ICU admission correlated with higher ICU mortality.
Background The primary objective of the study is to describe the cellular characteristics of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; the secondary outcome is to describe BALF findings between survivors vs non-survivors. Materials and methods Patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 RT PCR, admitted to ICU between March and April 2020 were enrolled. At ICU admission, BALF were analyzed by flow cytometry. Univariate, multivariate and Spearman correlation analyses were performed. Results Sixty-four patients were enrolled, median age of 64 years (IQR 58-69). The majority cells in the BALF were neutrophils (70%, IQR 37.5-90.5) and macrophages (27%, IQR 7-49) while a minority were lymphocytes, 1%, TCD3+ 92% (IQR 82-95). The ICU mortality was 32.8%. Non-survivors had a significantly older age (p = 0.033) and peripheral lymphocytes (p = 0.012) were lower compared to the survivors. At multivariate analysis the percentage of macrophages in the BALF correlated with poor outcome (OR 1.336, CI95% 1.014-1.759, p = 0.039). Conclusions In critically ill patients, BALF cellularity is mainly composed of neutrophils and macrophages. The macrophages percentage in the BALF at ICU admittance correlated with higher ICU mortality. The lack of lymphocytes in BALF could partly explain a reduced anti-viral response.

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