Background: This guideline addresses the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP). It represents a collaborative effort among the American Thoracic Society, Japanese Respiratory Society, and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax. Methods: Systematic reviews were performed for six questions. The evidence was discussed, and then recommendations were formulated by a multidisciplinary committee of experts in the field of interstitial lung disease and HP using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Results: The guideline committee defined HP, and clinical, radiographic, and pathological features were described. HP was classified into nonfibrotic and fibrotic phenotypes. There was limited evidence that was directly applicable to all questions. The need for a thorough history and a validated questionnaire to identify potential exposures was agreed on. Serum IgG testing against potential antigens associated with HP was suggested to identify potential exposures. For patients with nonfibrotic HP, a recommendation was made in favor of obtaining bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid for lymphocyte cellular analysis, and suggestions for transbronchial lung biopsy and surgical lung biopsy were also made. For patients with fibrotic HP, suggestions were made in favor of obtaining BAL for lymphocyte cellular analysis, transbronchial lung cryobiopsy, and surgical lung biopsy. Diagnostic criteria were established, and a diagnostic algorithm was created by expert consensus. Knowledge gaps were identified as future research directions. Conclusions: The guideline committee developed a systematic approach to the diagnosis of HP. The approach should be reevaluated as new evidence accumulates.

Rationale: Advanced bronchoscopy techniques such as electromagnetic navigation (EMN) have been studied in clinical trials, but there are no randomized studies comparing EMN with standard bronchoscopy.Objectives: To measure and identify the determinants of diagnostic yield for bronchoscopy in patients with peripheral lung lesions. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic yield of different sampling techniques, complications, and practice pattern variations.Methods: We used the AQuIRE (ACCP Quality Improvement Registry, Evaluation, and Education) registry to conduct a multicenter study of consecutive patients who underwent transbronchial biopsy (TBBx) for evaluation of peripheral lesions.Measurements and Main Results: Fifteen centers with 22 physicians enrolled 581 patients. Of the 581 patients, 312 (53.7%) had a diagnostic bronchoscopy. Unadjusted for other factors, the diagnostic yield was 63.7% when no radial endobronchial ultrasound (r-EBUS) and no EMN were used, 57.0% with r-EBUS alone, 38.5% with EMN alone, and 47.1% with EMN combined with r-EBUS. In multivariate analysis, peripheral transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), larger lesion size, nonupper lobe location, and tobacco use were associated with increased diagnostic yield, whereas EMN was associated with lower diagnostic yield. Peripheral TBNA was used in 16.4% of cases. TBNA was diagnostic, whereas TBBx was nondiagnostic in 9.5% of cases in which both were performed. Complications occurred in 13 (2.2%) patients, and pneumothorax occurred in 10 (1.7%) patients. There were significant differences between centers and physicians in terms of case selection, sampling methods, and anesthesia. Medical center diagnostic yields ranged from 33 to 73% (P = 0.16).Conclusions: Peripheral TBNA improved diagnostic yield for peripheral lesions but was underused. The diagnostic yields of EMN and r-EBUS were lower than expected, even after adjustment.

on behalf of the AQuIRE Bronchoscopy Registry BACKGROUND: Th ere is signifi cant variation between physicians in terms of how they perform therapeutic bronchoscopy, but there are few data on whether these differences impact eff ectiveness.

and Michael Simoff , MD , FCCP ; on behalf of the AQuIRE Bronchoscopy Registry BACKGROUND: Th ere are signifi cant variations in how therapeutic bronchoscopy for malignant airway obstruction is performed. Relatively few studies have compared how these approaches aff ect the incidence of complications.

BACKGROUND: The role of tracheostomy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic remains unknown. The goal of this consensus statement is to examine the current evidence for performing tracheostomy in patients with respiratory failure from COVID-19 and offer guidance to physicians on the preparation, timing, and technique while minimizing the risk of infection to health care workers (HCWs). METHODS: A panel including intensivists and interventional pulmonologists from three professional societies representing 13 institutions with experience in managing patients with COVID-19 across a spectrum of health-care environments developed key clinical questions addressing specific topics on tracheostomy in COVID-19. A systematic review of the literature and an established modified Delphi consensus methodology were applied to provide a reliable evidence-based consensus statement and expert panel report. RESULTS: Eight key questions, corresponding to 14 decision points, were rated by the panel. The results were aggregated, resulting in eight main recommendations and five additional remarks intended to guide health-care providers in the decision-making process pertinent to tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19-related respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: This panel suggests performing tracheostomy in patients expected to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. A specific timing of tracheostomy cannot be recommended. There is no evidence for routine repeat reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing in patients with confirmed COVID-19 evaluated for tracheostomy. To reduce the risk of infection in HCWs, we recommend performing the procedure using techniques that minimize aerosolization while wearing enhanced personal protective equipment. The recommendations presented in this statement may change as more experience is gained during this pandemic.

Tracheo-oesophageal fistula (TOF) is a pathological connection between the trachea and the oesophagus that is associated with various underlying conditions including malignancies, infections, inhalation injuries and traumatic damage. As the condition spans multiple organ systems with varying aetiologies and acuities, TOF poses unique diagnostic and management challenges to pulmonologists, gastroenterologists and thoracic surgeons alike. Although stents have been a cornerstone in the management of TOF, there exists a large gap in our understanding of their efficacy and precise methodology, making stenting procedure both art and science. TOFs relating to underlying oesophageal or tracheal malignancies require advanced understanding of the airway and digestive tract anatomy, dimensions of the fistula, stent characteristics and types, and the interplay between the oesophageal stent and the airway stent if dual stenting procedure is elected. In this review article, we review the most up-to-date data on risk factors, clinical manifestations, diagnostic approaches, management methods and prognosis. Consequently, this article serves to evaluate current therapeutic strategies and the future directions in the areas of 3D-printed stents, over-the-scope clipping systems, tissue matrices and atrial septal closure devices.

Our prediction rule can be used to estimate prN2/3 in patients with NSCLC. The model has the potential to facilitate clinical decision making in the staging of NSCLC.

No abstract