4.7 Article

Role of surgical lung biopsy in separating chronic hypersensitivity pneumonia from usual interstitial pneumonia/idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis - Analysis of 31 biopsies from 15 patients

期刊

CHEST
卷 134, 期 1, 页码 126-132

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1378/chest.08-0033

关键词

hypersensitivity pneumonia; interstitial lung disease; pulmonary fibrosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lung biopsy has been proposed as a criterion for diagnosis of chronic hypersensitivity pneumonia (HP), especially in patients without proven antigen exposure. Histologic findings in some suspected HP patients overlap with usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) and nonspecific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP). We reviewed our experience to determine the specificity of histologic findings in surgical lung biopsies from patients with clinical diagnoses of HP. Methods: Surgical lung biopsies from patients with chronic HP, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and idiopathic NSIP were reviewed retrospectively without knowledge of the clinical diagnosis. Each specimen was assigned a histologic diagnosis, and selected histologic findings were tabulated. Clinical data were abstracted from medical records. Results: Fifteen patients with clinical diagnoses of chronic HP underwent biopsy of one to three lobes. Ten showed features diagnostic of HP in all specimens. Two had discordant findings that included HP in one specimen and UIP or nonspecific changes in others. Biopsies from two showed only UIP, and one showed NSIP. Diagnostic features were present in all samples from 9 of the 11 patients with more than one biopsy site (81.8%). Three patients died of disease, including both patients from whom biopsies showed only UIP. Conclusions: Most patients with a clinical diagnosis of chronic HP have supportive histologic findings in surgical lung biopsies. A subset of HP patients has findings indistinguishable from UIP. Sampling from more than one lobe may be helpful in separating HP from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据