切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版) ›› 2019, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (03) : 221 -226. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1358.2019.03.009

所属专题: 文献

论著

新型经电子纤维支气管镜下防污染支气管肺泡灌洗、支气管肺泡灌洗以及常规痰检法在肺部感染诊治中的应用
王继灵1, 杨莉1, 陈国辉1, 张欣欣1, 罗源1, 杨庆斌1,()   
  1. 1. 230000 合肥市,合肥市第二人民医院呼吸内科
  • 收稿日期:2018-11-28 出版日期:2019-06-15
  • 通信作者: 杨庆斌
  • 基金资助:
    合肥市第二人民医院2017年度光华基金立项科研项目(No. 15011d04055)

Application value of new type of electronic fiberoptic bronchoscope for anti-contamination bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchoalveolar lavage and routine sputum detection in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection

Jiling Wang1, Li Yang1, Guohui Chen1, Xinxin Zhang1, Yuan Luo1, Qingbin Yang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hefei Second People’s Hospital, Hefei 230000, China
  • Received:2018-11-28 Published:2019-06-15
  • Corresponding author: Qingbin Yang
  • About author:
    Corresponding Author: Yang Qingbin, Email:
引用本文:

王继灵, 杨莉, 陈国辉, 张欣欣, 罗源, 杨庆斌. 新型经电子纤维支气管镜下防污染支气管肺泡灌洗、支气管肺泡灌洗以及常规痰检法在肺部感染诊治中的应用[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(03): 221-226.

Jiling Wang, Li Yang, Guohui Chen, Xinxin Zhang, Yuan Luo, Qingbin Yang. Application value of new type of electronic fiberoptic bronchoscope for anti-contamination bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchoalveolar lavage and routine sputum detection in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Experimental and Clinical Infectious Diseases(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(03): 221-226.

目的

分析新型经电子纤维支气管镜下防污染支气管肺泡灌洗(PBAL)、支气管肺泡灌洗(BAL)以及常规痰检法在肺部感染诊治中的应用价值。

方法

随机选取2016年1月至2017年10月于合肥市第二人民医院住院的肺部感染者共85例,入组患者均行PBAL、BAL以及常规痰检法,并结合影像学检测。分析以上3种方法病原菌检出率和治疗总有效率。

结果

85例患者共收集255份标本,培养出病原菌163株,总阳性率为63.92%,其中行PBAL法、BAL法与常规痰检法的病原菌检出率分别为80.00%(68/85)、67.06%(57/85)和44.70%(38/85)。PBAL法与常规痰检法的病原菌检出率差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 12.582、P < 0.001),而与BAL法的病原菌检出率差异无统计学意义(χ2 = 1.570、P = 0.210),BAL法与常规痰检法的病原菌检出率差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 5.363、P = 0.021)。三种方法检出革兰阴性菌占病原菌总数的69.33%(113/163),革兰阳性菌占病原菌总数的24.54%(40/163),真菌占病原菌总数6.13%(10/163)。PBAL法、BAL法以及常规痰检法取样后药敏试验结果显示,革兰阴性菌平均耐药率为(87.34 ± 5.52)%、(76.13 ± 6.33)%和(66.65 ± 4.85)%,差异有统计学意义(F = 115.531、P < 0.001);平均敏感度为(82.12 ± 4.79)%、(72.54 ± 6.14)%和(62.74 ± 4.65)%,差异有统计学意义(F = 114.712、P < 0.001)。PBAL法、BAL法以及常规痰检法取样后药敏试验结果显示,革兰阳性菌平均耐药率分别为(85.45 ± 5.13)%、(73.24 ± 4.87)%和(65.37 ± 5.13)%,差异有统计学意义(F = 54.626、P < 0.001);平均敏感度分别为(80.56 ± 4.67)%、(69.42 ± 4.65)%和(61.34 ± 4.25)%,差异有统计学意义(F = 61.114、P < 0.001);68例细菌培养呈阳性患者根据以上三种取样方法进行药敏试验调整抗菌药物治疗后,PBAL法总有效率为88.24%(56/68),显著高于BAL法[73.68%(42/57)]和常规痰检法[52.63%(20/38)],差异均有统计学意义(χ2 = 4.372、P = 0.036,χ2 =16.692、P < 0.001);BAL法总有效率则显著高于常规痰检(73.68% vs. 52.63%),差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 4.458、P = 0.035);PBAL法总有效率显著高于BAL法(88.24% vs. 73.68%)差异有统计学意义(χ2 = 4.372、P = 0.036)。

结论

PBAL与BAL法的病原学检测率与治疗总有效率均高于常规痰检,且PBAL法取样后经药敏试验调整抗菌药物后的治疗总有效率高于BAL法,故PBAL法具有更高的应用价值。

Objective

To investigate the application value of anti-contamination bronchoalveolar lavage (PBAL), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and routine sputum detection in the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary infection by electronic fiber bronchoscopy.

Methods

Total of 85 patients with pulmonary infection admitted to Hefei Second People’s Hospital from January 2016 to October 2017 were selected, randomly. All patients underwent PBAL, BAL and routine sputum detection, also combined with image detection. The detection rate of pathogenic bacteria and the total effective rate after clinical treatment were analyzed by the above three methods.

Results

A total of 255 specimens were collected from 85 patients, and 163 strains of pathogens were cultured. The total positive rate was 63.92%. The detection rates of PBAL, BAL and routine sputum detection were 80.00% (68/85), 67.06% (57/85) and 44.70% (38/85), respectively. The detection rates of pathogens by PBAL method and routine sputum detection were significantly different (χ2 = 12.582, P < 0.001), but without significant difference compared with the detection rate of pathogens by BAL method (χ2 = 1.570, P = 0.210). The detection rate of pathogens by BAL method and routine sputum detction were significantly different (χ2 = 5.363, P = 0.021). Gram-negative bacteria accounted for 69.33% (113/163), Gram-positive bacteria accounted for 24.54% (40/163), and fungi accounted for 6.13% (10/163) of the total number of pathogens by three methods. The results of drug sensitivity test after sampled by PBAL, BAL and routine sputum showed that the average resistance rates of Gram-negative bacteria were (87.34 ± 5.52)%, (76.13 ± 6.33)% and (66.65 ± 4.85)%, with significant difference (F = 115.531, P < 0.001); the average sensitivity were (82.12 ± 4.79)%, (72.54 ± 6.14)% and (62.74 ± 4.65)%, with significant difference (F = 114.712, P < 0.001). The results of drug sensitivity test after sampled by PBAL, BAL and routine sputum showed that the average resistance rates of Gram-positive bacteria were (85.45 ± 5.13)%, (73.24 ± 4.87)% and (65.37 ± 5.13)%, with significant difference (F = 54.626, P < 0.001); while the average sensitivity were (80.56 ± 4.67)%, (69.42 ± 4.65)% and (61.34 ± 4.25)%, with significant difference (F = 61.114, P < 0.001). Total of 68 patients with positive bacterial culture were tested for antimicrobial susceptibility according to the above three sampling methods, the total effective rate of PBAL was 88.24% (56/68), which was significantly higher than that of BAL [73.68% (42/57)] and routine sputum detction [52.63% (20/38)], with significant difference (χ2 = 4.372, P = 0.036; χ2 = 16.692, P < 0.001). The total effective rate of BAL method was significantly higher than that of the routine sputum detection (73.68% vs. 52.63%; χ2 = 4.458, P = 0.035). The total effective rate of PBAL was significantly higher than that of BAL (88.24%vs. 73.68%), with significant difference (χ2 = 4.372, P = 0.036).

Conclusions

The pathogenic detection rate and total effective rates of anti-pollution tracheal alveolar lavage and anti-contamination tracheal lens alveolar lavage sampled by drug susceptibility test after adjusting antibacterial drugs, the total effective rate is higher than of BAL. The total effective rate of anti-pollution PBAL is higher than that of BAL, suggesting that it has higher application value.

表1 三种方法所检出革兰阴性和阳性菌与真菌分布[株(%)]
表2 PBAL法、BAL法以及常规痰检取样后药敏试验结果(%)
表3 三种取样方法经药敏试验调整抗菌药物后细菌培养阳性患者的疗效[例(%)]
[23]
何琼, 陈中举, 田磊, 等. 呼吸病区患者支气管肺泡灌洗液中病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 中国实验诊断学,2017,21(2):208-211.
[24]
Nadimpalli S, Foca M, Satwani P, et al. Diagnostic yield of bronchoalveolar lavage in immunocompromised children with malignant and non-malignant disorders[J]. Pediatr Pulmonol,2017,52(6):820-826.
[25]
倪鸿昌, 严玉兰, 凌芳. 我院136例难治性肺部感染患者支气管肺泡灌洗液病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 中国药房,2016,27(26):3630-3632.
[1]
徐叶萍, 陈军辉, 王玉海, 等. 神经外科住院病人肺部感染病原学及细菌耐药性分析[J]. 中国临床神经外科杂志,2017,22(9):660-662.
[2]
吴玉芳, 马志红, 王建军, 等. 重症监护室气管插管患者肺部感染发生情况调查分析[J]. 人民军医,2017,60(3):241-245.
[3]
张小华, 杨祚明. 难治性肺炎患儿支气管肺泡灌洗液细菌培养及药敏实验分析[J]. 河北医药,2016,38(15):2363-2365.
[4]
曹月琴, 张闻闻, 季猛, 等. 一次性防污染毛刷在重型颅脑创伤患者肺部感染中的应用[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2017,2(10):1837-1839.
[5]
中华医学会呼吸病学分会感染学组. 中国成人医院获得性肺炎与呼吸机相关性肺炎诊断和治疗指南(2018年版)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志,2018,41(4):255-280.
[6]
中华医学会呼吸病学分会. 肺部感染性疾病支气管肺泡灌洗病原体检测中国专家共识(2017年版)[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志,2017,40(8):578-583.
[7]
中华人民共和国卫生部医政司. 全国临床检验操作规程(第3版)(精)[M]. 东南大学出版社, 2006.
[8]
Baron EJ. Rapid identification of bacteria and yeast: summary of a National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards proposed guideline[J]. Clin Infect Dis,2001,33(2):220-225.
[9]
Willson DF, Webster A, Heidemann S, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of ventilator-associated infection: review of the critical illness stress-induced immune suppression prevention trial data[J]. Pediatr Crit Care Med,2016,17(4):287-293.
[10]
于珊玲, 刘菲菲, 刘丰遂, 等. 支气管镜肺泡灌洗在重症肺部感染应用及灌洗液培养结果分析[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2017,22(10):1750-1753.
[11]
韩秋, 李靖, 沈军, 等. 床旁纤维支气管镜辅助治疗卒中相关性肺炎的疗效[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志:电子版,2016,10(3):323-326.
[12]
陈肖华, 凌宙贵, 唐贞明, 等. 比较3种采样方法在下呼吸道感染病原学诊断的价值[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2017,22(4):649-652.
[13]
Desoubeaux G, Franck-Martel C, Caille A, et al. Use of calcofluor-blue brightener for the diagnosis of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in bronchial-alveolar lavage fluids: A single-center prospective study[J]. Med Mycol,2016,55(3):295-301.
[14]
于珊玲, 刘菲菲, 刘丰遂,等. 支气管镜肺泡灌洗在重症肺部感染应用及灌洗液培养结果分析[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2017,22(10):1750-1753.
[15]
温中薇, 凌宙贵, 唐贞明, 等. 经鼻和经气管插管支气管肺泡灌洗在病原学诊断及耐药率监测中的应用比较[J]. 中华全科医学,2017,15(1):20-23.
[16]
张海琼. 下呼吸道感染患儿支气管肺泡灌洗液病原菌分布及耐药性分析[J]. 儿科药学杂志,2017,28(5):39-42.
[17]
Ganter M, Hensel A. Cellular variables in bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (BALF) in selected healthy pigs[J]. Res Vet Sci,2016,63(3):215-217.
[18]
谭何易, 唐胜军, 罗永强, 等. 食管癌患者术后肺部感染的病原菌分布及其药物敏感性[J/CD]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版),2017,11(1):56-59.
[19]
于珊玲, 刘菲菲, 刘丰遂, 等. 支气管镜肺泡灌洗在重症肺部感染应用及灌洗液培养结果分析[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2017,22(10):1750-1753.
[20]
陈伟, 凌敏. 难治性下呼吸道感染患者BALF病原菌分布及药敏分析[J]. 临床肺科杂志,2016,21(2):223-226.
[21]
Bezdicek M, Lengerova M, Ricna D, et al. Rapid detection of fungal pathogens in bronchoalveolar lavage samples using panfungal PCR combined with high resolution melting, analysis[J]. Med Mycol,2016,54(7):714-724.
[22]
Polin RA, Denson S, Brady MT. Epidemiology and diagnosis of health care-associated infections in the NICU[J]. Pediatrics,2016,129(4):e1104-e1109.
[1] 农云洁, 黄小桂, 黄裕兰, 农恒荣. 超声在多重肺部感染诊断中的临床应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 872-876.
[2] 曾雪灵, 杨思园, 常宇飞, 赵红心, 王凌航. 176例人类免疫缺陷病毒合并肺部感染者呼吸道病原体特点与免疫学特征[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(03): 142-148.
[3] 孙芳, 王军, 孙钊宁, 余宏川, 杨婷婷, 孙欣荣. 肺泡灌洗液宏基因二代测序在儿童重症肺炎中的应用[J/OL]. 中华实验和临床感染病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 27-34.
[4] 董大红, 周明虎, 李芝朋, 许正峰. 碳青霉烯类抗生素联合呼吸机治疗肺部感染的临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 793-796.
[5] 于燕兴, 梅喜庆, 刘凤娟, 于梓薇, 许亚慧, 徐飞. 高通量测序重症肺炎肺泡灌洗液病原体的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 785-788.
[6] 邢嘉翌, 龚佳晟, 祝佳佳, 陆群. 肺癌化疗患者继发肺部感染的病原菌耐药性及炎症因子变化分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(05): 714-718.
[7] 郑玉, 许振浪, 陈青青. 类鼻疽致肺部感染患者的治疗及药学监护分析一例[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 670-672.
[8] 刘锦程, 王斌, 张雯, 张明周, 刘禹, 叶东樊, 黄赞胜, 邱凌霄, 卿斌, 王创业, 王南博, 王苹, 郭宇航, 周培花, 程秋霞, 徐智. 肺泡灌洗液RASSF1A及SHOX2甲基化联合径向超声特征对肺结节性质鉴别诊断的意义[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(04): 505-511.
[9] 郭小琦, 张璞, 李小军, 余明, 王博. 口服醋酸泼尼松联合局部注射曲安奈德对食管早癌ESD术后食管狭窄及肺部感染的预防疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 288-291.
[10] 高瑞, 康迪斯, 秦蘅, 胡月明, 初同伟, 代丽. 加速康复管理改善膝关节置换术后肺部感染并发症和疗效的Meta分析[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 234-237.
[11] 徐辉, 杨勇琼, 刘健, 许剑, 江佳莲, 邓正波. s-ChE、PCT、CRP在肺结核中的表达及继发肺部感染的预测意义[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 292-295.
[12] 罗懿, 王洪武. 宏基因组高通量测序在肺部感染中的应用[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(02): 320-323.
[13] 刘凌卉, 程铃, 张小雪, 肖敏. 环状RNA与肺部感染的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2024, 17(01): 140-143.
[14] 贾玲玲, 滕飞, 常键, 黄福, 刘剑萍. 心肺康复在各种疾病中应用的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 859-862.
[15] 华美芳, 陈莉, 张峰林, 刘忠. 出血性脑卒中术后并发肺部感染的影响因素分析[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 110-114.
阅读次数
全文


摘要