Background: Tumour markers in pleural fluid and their diagnostic value are subject to debate. Although there are several studies on this topic, standardized cut-off values do not exist. In this study we investigated the potential of a ratio of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in pleural fluid and serum, serving as an individual marker for pleural cancer manifestation. Methods: A total of 201 consecutive patients with unclear pleural effusion were included in the study; 98 were diagnosed with malignant pleural effusion and 103 had an effusion due to other, benign reasons. CEA levels in pleural fluid and serum were measured. Results: By using receiver operating characteristics analysis, at the cut-off of 1.0, the CEA ratio showed a specificity of 92% and sensitivity of 85%, with a positive predictive value of 91% and a negative predictive value of 87%. These results are higher than in previous investigations on different pleural tumour markers and their combination. Conclusions: The CEA ratio is a useful tool in predicting pleural carcinosis. Elevated results in cytology-negative patients should lead to further investigations, such as repeated cytological examination or thoracoscopy.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a severe and often fatal disease. Diagnosis of IPF requires considerable expertise and experience. Since the publication of the international IPF guideline in the year 2011 and the update 2018 several studies and technical advances have occurred, which made a new assessment of the diagnostic process mandatory. The goal of this guideline is to foster early, confident, and effective diagnosis of IPF. The guideline focusses on the typical clinical context of an IPF patient and provides tools to exclude known causes of interstitial lung disease including standardized questionnaires, serologic testing, and cellular analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage. High-resolution computed tomography remains crucial in the diagnostic workup. If it is necessary to obtain specimens for histology, transbronchial lung cryobiopsy is the primary approach, while surgical lung biopsy is reserved for patients who are fit for it and in whom a bronchoscopic diagnosis did not provide the information needed. After all, IPF is a diagnosis of exclusion and multidisciplinary discussion remains the golden standard of diagnosis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is currently a challenge worldwide. In Austria, a crisis within the healthcare system has so far been prevented. The treatment of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), including SARS-CoV-2 infections, should continue to be based on evidence-based CAP guidelines during the pandemic; however, COVID-19 specific adjustments are useful. The treatment of patients with chronic lung diseases

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to differentiate unspecific and self-limiting fever after bronchoscopy from fever due to infection by using serum procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and neutrophil count. Furthermore, frequency of fever after bronchoscopy and procedures as possible risk factors were evaluated.MethodsThree hundred and fourteen consecutive patients were included. All bronchoscopies were performed using jet-ventilation and general anesthesia. Patients were analyzed according to interventions performed during bronchoscopy and laboratory results. Microbiological assessment was done in patients who developed fever to prove or rule out a bacterial infection.ResultsForty-four patients showed fever within 24 h following bronchoscopy (14%). A bacterial infection was proven in 11 patients with fever (3.5%). Procalcitonin, neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were significantly higher in patients with fever after bronchoscopy compared to non-fever patients. To predict bacterial infection in the receiver operating analysis, procalcitonin had the highest area under the curve (0.942; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.768 to 1.000; p = <0.001), followed by neutrophil count (AUC, 0.804; 95% CI, 0.606 to 0.946; p = 0.005), whereas CRP levels where not statistically significant. Endoscopic airway recanalization was the only intervention that induced fever more frequently than all other interventions (OR 13.629).ConclusionsFever is frequently seen after bronchoscopy and in some cases caused by bacterial infection. Procalcitonin might be useful to distinguish a bacterial infection from unspecific self-limiting fever. Airway recanalization is a procedure that seems to induce fever significantly more often than other bronchoscopic interventions.