Suppr超能文献

不同技术用于诊断呼吸机相关性肺炎的验证。与死后即刻肺活检的比较。

Validation of different techniques for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Comparison with immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsy.

作者信息

Torres A, el-Ebiary M, Padró L, Gonzalez J, de la Bellacasa J P, Ramirez J, Xaubet A, Ferrer M, Rodriguez-Roisin R

机构信息

Servei de Pneumologia i Al.lergia Respiratoria, Hospital Clínic, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994 Feb;149(2 Pt 1):324-31. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.149.2.8306025.

Abstract

To assess the accuracy of clinical parameters for the diagnosis of ventilator-associated (VA) pneumonia, as well as the diagnostic value of several invasive techniques, such as protected specimen brush (PSB), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), fiberoptic bronchial aspirates (FBAS), and percutaneous lung needle aspiration (PLNA), we compared the results of these techniques with the histopathology of immediate postmortem pulmonary biopsies, considered the "gold standard" reference test. We studied 30 mechanically ventilated patients (age 52 +/- 21 yr; mechanical ventilation period 9 +/- 7 days) who died in an intensive care unit. All patients received prior antibiotic treatment. The following procedures were performed immediately after death: bilateral PSB, BAL, FBAS, and PLNA, as well as bilateral minithoracotomies to obtain pulmonary biopsies as close as possible to the area sampled with the other techniques. According to the histopathology 18 patients had pneumonia and 12 did not. The presence of fever (sensitivity 55%, specificity 58%), purulent secretions (sensitivity 83%, specificity 33%), and chest radiograph infiltrates (sensitivity 78%, specificity 42%) could not differentiate in all instances presence from absence of pneumonia. Quantitative bacterial cultures of lung biopsies using 10(3) cfu/g as a cutoff point had low sensitivity (40%) and low specificity (45%) and could not differentiate the histologic absence or presence of pneumonia. Considering the histopathology of pulmonary biopsies as a gold standard, we found the following sensitivities for PSB, BAL, FBAS, and PLNA: 36, 50, 44, and 25%. The specificities were 50, 45, 48, and 79%, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities of different invasive techniques are much lower than those reported in clinical studies.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

摘要

为评估临床参数对诊断呼吸机相关性(VA)肺炎的准确性,以及几种侵入性技术(如保护性标本刷检(PSB)、支气管肺泡灌洗(BAL)、纤维支气管镜吸引(FBAS)和经皮肺穿刺抽吸(PLNA))的诊断价值,我们将这些技术的结果与即刻尸检肺活检的组织病理学结果进行了比较,后者被视为“金标准”参考检测。我们研究了30例在重症监护病房死亡的机械通气患者(年龄52±21岁;机械通气时间9±7天)。所有患者生前均接受过抗生素治疗。死亡后立即进行以下操作:双侧PSB、BAL、FBAS和PLNA,以及双侧开胸小切口以获取尽可能接近其他技术采样区域的肺活检组织。根据组织病理学结果,18例患者患有肺炎,12例未患肺炎。发热(敏感性55%,特异性58%)、脓性分泌物(敏感性83%,特异性33%)和胸部X线浸润影(敏感性78%,特异性42%)在所有情况下均无法区分是否存在肺炎。以10³cfu/g为界值的肺活检定量细菌培养敏感性低(40%)、特异性低(45%),无法区分组织学上有无肺炎。以肺活检组织病理学为金标准,我们发现PSB、BAL、FBAS和PLNA的敏感性分别为36%、50%、44%和25%。特异性分别为50%、45%、48%和79%。不同侵入性技术的敏感性和特异性远低于临床研究报道。(摘要截短于250字)

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验