Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada; McGill Otolaryngology Sciences Laboratory, Department of Pediatric Surgery, McGill University, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, H4A 3J1, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3G 2M1, Canada.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2024 Nov;186:112151. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2024.112151. Epub 2024 Oct 28.
A diagnostic pathway to detect aspiration is challenging and usually requires a multidisciplinary approach and a variety of tests. Lipid-laden macrophage index (LLMI) was first described in 1985 by Corwin and Irwin as a promising tool to detect aspiration. Information in the literature as well as physicians' opinions about the clinical value of the LLMI remains controversial.
To assess the clinical value and possible limitations of LLMI as a diagnostic marker for detecting aspiration in children.
Based on the available literature we thought to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a reliable cutoff value of LLMI to detect aspiration? 2. What are the limitations of LLMI? We queried 8 electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, Global Health, Web of Science, Africa Wide Information, and Global Index Medicus. Studies were selected based on established study criteria. Search was limited to publications in English language including human and animal studies. Authors reviewed 2900 articles and identified 21 relevant to the studied subject.
Research reveals different proposed cutoff values for aspirators ranging from 85 to 200 macrophages. LLMI reliability has several limitations including: inter- and intraobserver variability among pathologists scores, inability to differentiate between exogenous and endogenous lipid content, inconsistencies in the definition of the term "aspiration" in various publications. Also, studies in animal models have shown that the nature of the disease, frequency of aspiration, and the time frame when bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is performed, could all contribute to the overlap in LLMI in aspirators versus non-aspirators.
Our research demonstrates the limitations of LLMI in distinguishing between aspirators and non-aspirators. We believe based on these findings that airway teams should audit their local data as to the value of BAL in detecting aspiration in their patient population.
诊断是否发生吸入是一项具有挑战性的工作,通常需要多学科的方法和多种检查。1985 年,Corwin 和 Irwin 首次描述了脂滴丰富的巨噬细胞指数(LLMI),作为一种有前途的检测吸入的工具。文献中的信息以及医生对 LLMI 的临床价值的看法仍存在争议。
评估 LLMI 作为检测儿童吸入的诊断标志物的临床价值和可能的局限性。
根据现有的文献,我们试图回答以下问题:1. 是否有可靠的 LLMI 截断值来检测吸入?2. LLMI 的局限性是什么?我们查询了 8 个电子数据库:Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane、全球健康、Web of Science、Africa Wide Information 和 Global Index Medicus。研究基于既定的研究标准进行选择。搜索仅限于英语出版物,包括人类和动物研究。作者共查阅了 2900 篇文章,其中有 21 篇与研究主题相关。
研究表明,不同研究提出的吸入物的建议截断值范围为 85 至 200 个巨噬细胞。LLMI 的可靠性存在几个局限性,包括:病理学家评分的观察者内和观察者间变异性、无法区分外源性和内源性脂质含量、不同出版物中“吸入”术语的定义不一致。此外,动物模型研究表明,疾病的性质、吸入的频率以及进行支气管肺泡灌洗(BAL)的时间框架,都可能导致吸入者和非吸入者的 LLMI 重叠。
我们的研究表明 LLMI 在区分吸入者和非吸入者方面存在局限性。我们认为,基于这些发现,气道团队应该审核他们当地的数据,了解 BAL 在检测其患者人群中吸入的价值。