Diagnostic accuracy of different bronchoscopic specimens in sputum Xpert MBT/RIF- negative pulmonary TB patients

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) control remains a critical public health problem worldwide. Rapid diagnosis and proper treatment are beneficial for the effective control of tuberculosis transmission. Diagnostic challenges arise when a patient has a clinical and radiological suspicion of tuberculosis but cannot produce sputum, sputum acid-fast bacilli, or Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampicin (Xpert MTB/RIF) is negative, resulting in suboptimal management. As a result, more invasive techniques must be used on these patients to establish the diagnosis. Methods: A retrospective study recruited 330 suspected pulmonary TB patients with negative sputum of Xpert MBT/RIF who underwent bronchoscopy between March 2018 and December 2021. The diagnostic yields of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (acid-fast bacilli, Xpert MTB/RIF, and culture) and histopathologic examination (HPE) were calculated and compared to the final diagnosis and culture as a gold standard. Results: Out of 330 suspected pulmonary TB patients, 181 had a final diagnosis of TB, and 149 had non-TB. The sensitivity of BALF (culture, Xpert, acid-fast bacilli) and trans-bronchial lung biopsy (HPE) was 80.7%, 72.9%, 21.1%, and 87.1%, respectively. Multiple nodules were associated with significantly higher BALF Xpert MTB, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid culture, and trans-bronchial lung biopsy (HPE) positivity. Conclusions: Bronchoscopic specimens are essential for accurate and rapid diagnosis of sputum Xpert MBT/RIF negative patients with high clinical and radiological suspicion of tuberculosis.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Badr, O. I., Elrefaey, W. A., Shabrawishi, M., Assaggaf, H. M., & Minshawi, F. (2022). Diagnostic accuracy of different bronchoscopic specimens in sputum Xpert MBT/RIF- negative pulmonary TB patients. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, 17. https://doi.org/10.4081/mrm.2022.872

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free