病因不明的咯血患者诊断工作的现行做法:一项国际调查。

Minerva medica Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-24 DOI:10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09192-4
Michele Mondoni, Jacopo Cefalo, Paolo Carlucci, Mariangela Puci, Laura Saderi, Mauro Degrassi, Alfons Torrego Fernandez, Virginia Pajares, Uffe Bodtger, Claudio Sorino, Maria P Zagaria, Paolo Solidoro, Stefano Centanni, Giovanni Sotgiu
{"title":"病因不明的咯血患者诊断工作的现行做法:一项国际调查。","authors":"Michele Mondoni, Jacopo Cefalo, Paolo Carlucci, Mariangela Puci, Laura Saderi, Mauro Degrassi, Alfons Torrego Fernandez, Virginia Pajares, Uffe Bodtger, Claudio Sorino, Maria P Zagaria, Paolo Solidoro, Stefano Centanni, Giovanni Sotgiu","doi":"10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09192-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hemoptysis is a challenging and potentially life-threatening medical condition. The most appropriate diagnostic work-up is debated and several diagnostic approaches are implemented worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An international, online survey was carried out to investigate the current practice of the diagnostic work-up of patients with hemoptysis of unknown etiology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 604 physicians responded to the survey. At baseline, chest X-ray was suggested as the first diagnostic investigation by 342 (56.6%) participants. Computed tomography (CT) was suggested in each patient with non- and life-threatening hemoptysis by 310 (51.3%) and 526 (87.1%) respondents, respectively. Contrast-enhanced CT is the currently preferred technique (333, 55.1%). In case of patchy ground glass opacities and negative CT, 287 (47.5%) and 222 (36.8%) participants, respectively, would always offer bronchoscopy. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation was mostly suggested in case of suspected upper airways bleeding before other investigations (212, 35.1%). A follow-up was recommended for idiopathic hemoptysis by the majority of the participants (316, 52.3%). A multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial for each patient with life-threatening hemoptysis (437, 72.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chest X-ray and contrast-enhanced CT are currently preferred as the first diagnostic investigations, regardless of hemoptysis severity. Bronchoscopy is suggested in case of negative radiological examination and when CT shows only ground glass opacities. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation is advised before any other investigations when upper airways bleeding is suspected. Patients with idiopathic hemoptysis are suggested to undergo a clinical follow-up and in case of life-threatening bleeding a multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial. Due to the heterogeneous approaches a consensus statement would be needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":94143,"journal":{"name":"Minerva medica","volume":" ","pages":"293-300"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The current practice in the diagnostic work-up of patients with hemoptysis of unknown etiology: an international survey.\",\"authors\":\"Michele Mondoni, Jacopo Cefalo, Paolo Carlucci, Mariangela Puci, Laura Saderi, Mauro Degrassi, Alfons Torrego Fernandez, Virginia Pajares, Uffe Bodtger, Claudio Sorino, Maria P Zagaria, Paolo Solidoro, Stefano Centanni, Giovanni Sotgiu\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09192-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hemoptysis is a challenging and potentially life-threatening medical condition. The most appropriate diagnostic work-up is debated and several diagnostic approaches are implemented worldwide.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An international, online survey was carried out to investigate the current practice of the diagnostic work-up of patients with hemoptysis of unknown etiology.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 604 physicians responded to the survey. At baseline, chest X-ray was suggested as the first diagnostic investigation by 342 (56.6%) participants. Computed tomography (CT) was suggested in each patient with non- and life-threatening hemoptysis by 310 (51.3%) and 526 (87.1%) respondents, respectively. Contrast-enhanced CT is the currently preferred technique (333, 55.1%). In case of patchy ground glass opacities and negative CT, 287 (47.5%) and 222 (36.8%) participants, respectively, would always offer bronchoscopy. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation was mostly suggested in case of suspected upper airways bleeding before other investigations (212, 35.1%). A follow-up was recommended for idiopathic hemoptysis by the majority of the participants (316, 52.3%). A multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial for each patient with life-threatening hemoptysis (437, 72.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Chest X-ray and contrast-enhanced CT are currently preferred as the first diagnostic investigations, regardless of hemoptysis severity. Bronchoscopy is suggested in case of negative radiological examination and when CT shows only ground glass opacities. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation is advised before any other investigations when upper airways bleeding is suspected. Patients with idiopathic hemoptysis are suggested to undergo a clinical follow-up and in case of life-threatening bleeding a multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial. Due to the heterogeneous approaches a consensus statement would be needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94143,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva medica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"293-300\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09192-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva medica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4806.24.09192-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:咯血是一种具有挑战性且可能危及生命的病症。全世界对最合适的诊断方法存在争议,并采用了多种诊断方法:结果:共有 604 名医生回复了调查。基线调查中,342 名参与者(56.6%)建议首先进行胸部 X 光检查。分别有 310 名(51.3%)和 526 名(87.1%)受访者建议对每名非咯血和有生命危险的咯血患者进行计算机断层扫描(CT)。对比增强 CT 是目前的首选技术(333 人,55.1%)。在出现斑片状磨玻璃不透光和 CT 阴性的情况下,分别有 287 名(47.5%)和 222 名(36.8%)受访者会选择进行支气管镜检查。如果怀疑上呼吸道出血,大多数人建议先进行耳鼻喉科评估,然后再进行其他检查(212 人,35.1%)。大多数参与者(316 人,52.3%)建议对特发性咯血进行随访。对于每位有生命危险的咯血患者,多学科评估被认为是至关重要的(437 人,72.4%):无论咯血严重程度如何,胸部 X 光检查和对比增强 CT 目前都是首选的诊断检查方法。如果放射检查呈阴性或 CT 仅显示磨玻璃不透明,则建议进行支气管镜检查。怀疑上呼吸道出血时,建议先进行耳鼻喉科评估,然后再进行其他检查。建议对特发性咯血患者进行临床随访,如果出血危及生命,则必须进行多学科评估。由于采用的方法各不相同,因此需要一份共识声明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The current practice in the diagnostic work-up of patients with hemoptysis of unknown etiology: an international survey.

Background: Hemoptysis is a challenging and potentially life-threatening medical condition. The most appropriate diagnostic work-up is debated and several diagnostic approaches are implemented worldwide.

Methods: An international, online survey was carried out to investigate the current practice of the diagnostic work-up of patients with hemoptysis of unknown etiology.

Results: Overall, 604 physicians responded to the survey. At baseline, chest X-ray was suggested as the first diagnostic investigation by 342 (56.6%) participants. Computed tomography (CT) was suggested in each patient with non- and life-threatening hemoptysis by 310 (51.3%) and 526 (87.1%) respondents, respectively. Contrast-enhanced CT is the currently preferred technique (333, 55.1%). In case of patchy ground glass opacities and negative CT, 287 (47.5%) and 222 (36.8%) participants, respectively, would always offer bronchoscopy. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation was mostly suggested in case of suspected upper airways bleeding before other investigations (212, 35.1%). A follow-up was recommended for idiopathic hemoptysis by the majority of the participants (316, 52.3%). A multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial for each patient with life-threatening hemoptysis (437, 72.4%).

Conclusions: Chest X-ray and contrast-enhanced CT are currently preferred as the first diagnostic investigations, regardless of hemoptysis severity. Bronchoscopy is suggested in case of negative radiological examination and when CT shows only ground glass opacities. Otorhinolaryngological evaluation is advised before any other investigations when upper airways bleeding is suspected. Patients with idiopathic hemoptysis are suggested to undergo a clinical follow-up and in case of life-threatening bleeding a multidisciplinary assessment is deemed crucial. Due to the heterogeneous approaches a consensus statement would be needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effects of dual-sufficiency modified nursing care on treatment compliance and adverse cardiovascular events in elderly patients with coronary heart disease after interventional surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy of different vertebroplasties in the treatment of osteoporotic spinal fractures in the elderly. Detection method of inflammatory cells in cytopathological images of chronic rhinosinusitis. BNT162b2 vaccine booster dose did not influence the activity of the exudative form of age-related macular degeneration during anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Identification of biomarkers and construction of a clinical-radiomics model for predicting functional outcome in acute ischemic stroke.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1