Background: Lower airway sampling is important in the assessment of lower respiratory tract infection in children with cancer or posthematopoietic stem cell transplant and can be done via bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). Clinicians can struggle with balancing the benefits of BAL against the risks. This study aimed to define the diagnostic and clinical utility of BAL in this population. Methods: A single-center retrospective review of BAL performed in children with cancer or posthematopoietic stem cell transplant. Data extracted included demographics, BAL method and results and antimicrobial treatment. Variables significantly associated with diagnostic yield, diagnostic impact (confirmation or exclusion of infection), and clinical impact (any change in antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial therapy) were assessed in both univariate and multivariate analysis. Results: Seventy-three BAL episodes were included. In 26 (35.6%) episodes, a pathogen was identified on BAL. Forty-nine (67%) BAL episodes had a diagnostic impact and 15 (21%) had a clinical impact. Late BAL (>72 hours) compared with early BAL (odds ratio 3.27; 95% CI: 1.03–10.86), and flexible bronchoscopy compared with nonbronchoscopic lavage (odds ratio 6.10; 95% CI: 1.90–24.0), were more likely to have a diagnostic impact on multivariate analysis. No associations were found for clinical impact. Conclusions: One-third of BAL episodes identified a pathogen, two-thirds had a diagnostic impact, and almost a quarter of episodes impacted antimicrobial prescribing. The method and timing of BAL may be important, with flexible bronchoscopy 6-fold more likely and late BAL 3-fold more likely to have a diagnostic impact.
Background Multiple screening Duplex ultrasound scans (DUS) are performed in trauma patients at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Intensive care physician performed compression ultrasound (IP-CUS) has shown promise as a diagnostic test for DVT in a non-trauma setting. Whether IP-CUS can be used as a screening test in trauma patients is unknown. Our study aimed to assess the agreement between IP-CUS and vascular sonographer performed DUS for proximal lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (PLEDVT) screening in high-risk trauma patients in ICU. Methods A prospective observational study was conducted at the ICU of Alfred Hospital, a major trauma center in Melbourne, Australia, between Feb and Nov 2015. All adult major trauma patients admitted with high risk for DVT were eligible for inclusion. IP-CUS was performed immediately before or after DUS for PLEDVT screening. The paired studies were repeated twice weekly until the DVT diagnosis, death or ICU discharge. Written informed consent from the patient, or person responsible, or procedural authorisation, was obtained. The individuals performing the scans were blinded to the others’ results. The agreement analysis was performed using Cohen’s Kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficient for repeated binary measurements. Results During the study period, 117 patients had 193 pairs of scans, and 45 (39%) patients had more than one pair of scans. The median age (IQR) was 47 (28–68) years with 77% males, mean (SD) injury severity score 27.5 (9.53), and a median (IQR) ICU length of stay 7 (3.2–11.6) days. There were 16 cases (13.6%) of PLEDVT with an incidence rate of 2.6 (1.6–4.2) cases per 100 patient-days in ICU. The overall agreement was 96.7% (95% CI 94.15–99.33). The Cohen’s Kappa between the IP-CUS and DUS was 0.77 (95% CI 0.59–0.95), and the intraclass correlation coefficient for repeated binary measures was 0.75 (95% CI 0.67–0.81). Conclusions There is a substantial agreement between IP-CUS and DUS for PLEDVT screening in trauma patients in ICU with high risk for DVT. Large multicentre studies are needed to confirm this finding.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.