4.2 Article

Association of bronchoalveolar lavage yield with chest computed tomography findings and symptoms in immunocompromised patients

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 153-159

出版社

SAUDI THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.4103/1817-1737.114302

关键词

Bronchoscopy; computed tomography; immunodeficiency; respiratory infection; respiratory symptoms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Fiber-optic bronchoscopy (FOB) with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is a common procedure performed in immunocompromised patients with undiagnosed pulmonary pathology. Identifying patients with the highest potential diagnostic yield may help to avoid morbidity in patients unlikely to benefit from the procedure. We sought to determine which patient factors, specifically chest computed tomography (CT) findings, affected diagnostic yield of BAL. Methods: Retrospective chart review of immunocompromised patients who underwent FOB with BAL from 01/01/2010 to 12/31/2011 at an academic medical center was performed. The lung lobe lavaged, characteristics of pulmonary infiltrate on radiograph, patient symptoms, and diagnostic yield were collected. A positive diagnostic yield was defined as a positive microbiological culture, finding on cytopathologic staining, diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, alveolar eosinophilia or a positive immunologic or nucleic acid assay. Results: The overall diagnostic yield was 52.6%. Infiltrates that were predominantly reticular or nodular by CT had a lower diagnostic yield than predominantly consolidated, ground-glass, or tree-in-bud infiltrates (36.5% vs. 61.2%, P = 0.0058). The diagnostic yield was significantly improved in patients with both fever and chest symptoms compared to patients without symptoms (61.3% vs. 29.6%, P = 0.0066). Conclusion: CT findings of reticular and nodular infiltrates portend a worse diagnostic yield from BAL than those that are alveolar in nature. Symptomatic patients are more likely to have diagnostic FOB with BAL than asymptomatic patients.

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

4.2
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