Enzyme Levels in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid and Serum of Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients

Enzyme ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. (a) Gupta ◽  
U. C. (a) Garg ◽  
R. (b) Dhand ◽  
A. (a) Kaur ◽  
N. K (a) Ganguly
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid ◽  
Lavage Fluid ◽  
Tuberculosis Patients ◽  
Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis

scholarly journals Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis Laboratory Diagnosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei Han ◽  
Jian-Qiong Guo ◽  
Xiao-Feng Yan ◽  
Wu-Yang Yue ◽  
Qian Qiu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid ◽  
Lavage Fluid ◽  
Laboratory Diagnosis ◽  
Smear Microscopy ◽  
Diagnostic Efficiency ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Indicator Tube

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic efficiency of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) for MycobacteriumTuberculosis (MTB) infection using laboratory methods. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in patients diagnosed with active pulmonary tuberculosis (APTB) and lacking sputum quality/quantity. BALF collected during the operation processes of Electric bronchoscopy were tested using Ziehl-Neelsen staining acid-fast bacilli smear microscopy (Z-N-AFB-SM), GeneXpert MTB/RIF（Xpert），loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), or culturing with BACTEC™ Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube™ 960 (MGIT). Chi-square test was used for statistic analysis. Results: 331 suspected APTB patients were enrolled in this study. 224 of them were sputum-scarce. 89 were sputum-sufficient andnegative in both Z-N-AFB-SM and MGIT 960 testing. Of the sputum sufficient patients, BALF-testing confirmed APTB diagnosis in 20.2% (18/89) via Z-N-AFB-SM, and 53.0% (35/89) via MGIT. The total positive rates of BALF testing via four aforementioned methods were 18.2% (57/313), 66.4% (168/253), 61.0% (83/136) and 48.2% (140/290) respectively. The positive rate of MTB discovered in BALF collected by well-trained respiratory physicians are significantly higher than those collected by anesthetists (χ2=22.48, P<0.01). Total adverse events incidence of BAL was 1.9% (6/313). Conclusion: BALF has a similar sensitivity and specificity for APTB laboratory diagnosis. It can be used as a complementary diagnostic method for APTB when sputum availability is poor. The proficiency of BALF collection is an important factor affecting the detection results.

scholarly journals Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Using Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong-Chao Liu ◽  
Yu-Lu Gao ◽  
Dan-Feng Li ◽  
Xi-Yi Zhao ◽  
Yuan-Qing Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pulmonary Tuberculosis ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage ◽  
Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Culture Method ◽  
Lavage Fluid ◽  
Likelihood Ratios ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background: The performance of Xpert MTB/RIF using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BAL) for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) remains unclear. Therefore, a systematic review/meta-analysis was conducted. Methods: Studies published before December 31, 2019, were retrieved from the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases using the keywords “pulmonary tuberculosis,” “Xpert MTB/RIF,” and “BAL.” Two independent evaluators extracted the data and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. A random-effects model was used to calculate the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR, respectively), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the area under the curve (AUC), as well as the respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Nineteen trials involving 3019 participants met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the culture method, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and the AUC with 95% CIs of Xpert MTB/RIF were 0.87 (0.84–0.90), 0.92 (0.91–0.93), 10.21 (5.78–18.02), 0.16 (0.12–0.22), 78.95 (38.59–161.53), and 0.9467 (0.9462-0.9472), respectively. Relative to the composite reference standard, the observed values were 0.69 (0.65–0.72), 0.98 (0.98–0.99), 37.50 (18.59–75.62), 0.30 (0.21–0.43), 171.98 (80.82–365.96), and 0.9691 (0.9683–0.9699), respectively. All subgroups, except children, showed high sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: The use of Xpert MTB/RIF in the context of BAL samples has a high diagnostic performance for PTB (except for children) and may serve as an alternative rapid diagnostic tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document