结合细胞学生物标志物作为肺移植受者急性排斥反应诊断的指南

Q4 Medicine
S. Aguado Ibáñez, R. Laporta Hernández, M. Aguilar Pérez, C. García Fadul, Cristina López García Gallo, G. Díaz Nuevo, S. Salinas Castillo, R. Castejón Díaz, C. Salas Anton, A. Royuela Vicente, F. B. Bernabéu Andreu, M. P. Ussetti Gil
{"title":"结合细胞学生物标志物作为肺移植受者急性排斥反应诊断的指南","authors":"S. Aguado Ibáñez, R. Laporta Hernández, M. Aguilar Pérez, C. García Fadul, Cristina López García Gallo, G. Díaz Nuevo, S. Salinas Castillo, R. Castejón Díaz, C. Salas Anton, A. Royuela Vicente, F. B. Bernabéu Andreu, M. P. Ussetti Gil","doi":"10.3390/transplantology4030011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The usefulness of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) to support the diagnosis of acute cellular (ACR) rejection in lung transplant (LTX) recipients remains controversial. ACR has been associated with blood eosinophil counts (EOS) in other solid organ recipients, but there are few studies in relation to lung transplants. Our aim was to assess the usefulness of the combined analysis of BALF cellularity and EOS for the diagnosis of ACR in lung transplant recipients. This is a retrospective study of findings observed simultaneously in 887 transbronchial biopsies (TBB), BALF, and blood samples obtained from 363 LTx patients transplanted between 2014 and 2020. The variables collected were: demographics, ACR degree, BALF cellularity, and simultaneous blood EOS counts. The lymphocyte count in BALF was significantly higher in patients with ACR than in those without (11.35% vs. 6.11%; p < 0.001). In parallel, EOS counts were also significantly higher in patients with ACR than in the non-ACR group (EOS 213 ± 206/mm3 vs. 83 ± 129/mm3; p < 0.001). Increases in both parameters were associated with an increased risk of ACR (lymphocytes OR 1.100; 95% CI 1.080–1.131; EOS OR 1.460; 95% CI 1.350–1.580). The diagnostic specificity of ACR for a lymphocyte count > 12% was 71.1%, which increased to 95.8% when taking into account a simultaneous blood EOS count > 200/mm3. Simultaneous assessment of BALF lymphocyte counts and blood eosinophil counts may be useful for diagnosing ACR in patients with risk factors for TBB or in the presence of inconclusive histological samples.","PeriodicalId":36461,"journal":{"name":"Cell and Organ Transplantology","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Combination of Cytological Biomarkers as a Guide in the Diagnosis of Acute Rejection in Lung Transplant Recipients\",\"authors\":\"S. Aguado Ibáñez, R. Laporta Hernández, M. Aguilar Pérez, C. García Fadul, Cristina López García Gallo, G. Díaz Nuevo, S. Salinas Castillo, R. Castejón Díaz, C. Salas Anton, A. Royuela Vicente, F. B. Bernabéu Andreu, M. P. Ussetti Gil\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/transplantology4030011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The usefulness of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) to support the diagnosis of acute cellular (ACR) rejection in lung transplant (LTX) recipients remains controversial. ACR has been associated with blood eosinophil counts (EOS) in other solid organ recipients, but there are few studies in relation to lung transplants. Our aim was to assess the usefulness of the combined analysis of BALF cellularity and EOS for the diagnosis of ACR in lung transplant recipients. This is a retrospective study of findings observed simultaneously in 887 transbronchial biopsies (TBB), BALF, and blood samples obtained from 363 LTx patients transplanted between 2014 and 2020. The variables collected were: demographics, ACR degree, BALF cellularity, and simultaneous blood EOS counts. The lymphocyte count in BALF was significantly higher in patients with ACR than in those without (11.35% vs. 6.11%; p < 0.001). In parallel, EOS counts were also significantly higher in patients with ACR than in the non-ACR group (EOS 213 ± 206/mm3 vs. 83 ± 129/mm3; p < 0.001). Increases in both parameters were associated with an increased risk of ACR (lymphocytes OR 1.100; 95% CI 1.080–1.131; EOS OR 1.460; 95% CI 1.350–1.580). The diagnostic specificity of ACR for a lymphocyte count > 12% was 71.1%, which increased to 95.8% when taking into account a simultaneous blood EOS count > 200/mm3. Simultaneous assessment of BALF lymphocyte counts and blood eosinophil counts may be useful for diagnosing ACR in patients with risk factors for TBB or in the presence of inconclusive histological samples.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cell and Organ Transplantology\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cell and Organ Transplantology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology4030011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cell and Organ Transplantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology4030011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

支气管肺泡灌洗液(BALF)在支持肺移植(LTX)受者急性细胞(ACR)排斥诊断中的作用仍然存在争议。在其他实体器官受者中,ACR与血嗜酸性粒细胞计数(EOS)有关,但与肺移植有关的研究很少。我们的目的是评估BALF细胞量和EOS联合分析对肺移植受者ACR诊断的有用性。这是一项回顾性研究,同时观察了2014年至2020年间移植的363例LTx患者的887例经支气管活检(TBB)、BALF和血液样本。收集的变量包括:人口统计学、ACR程度、BALF细胞度和同时的血液EOS计数。ACR患者BALF淋巴细胞计数明显高于无ACR患者(11.35% vs. 6.11%;P < 0.001)。与此同时,ACR患者的EOS计数也显著高于非ACR组(EOS 213±206/mm3 vs 83±129/mm3;P < 0.001)。这两个参数的增加与ACR(淋巴细胞OR 1.100;95% ci 1.080-1.131;Eos或1.460;95% ci 1.350-1.580)。当淋巴细胞计数> 12%时,ACR的诊断特异性为71.1%,当同时血液中EOS计数> 200/mm3时,ACR的诊断特异性增加到95.8%。同时评估BALF淋巴细胞计数和血液嗜酸性粒细胞计数可能有助于诊断有TBB危险因素或存在不确定组织学样本的患者的ACR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Combination of Cytological Biomarkers as a Guide in the Diagnosis of Acute Rejection in Lung Transplant Recipients
The usefulness of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) to support the diagnosis of acute cellular (ACR) rejection in lung transplant (LTX) recipients remains controversial. ACR has been associated with blood eosinophil counts (EOS) in other solid organ recipients, but there are few studies in relation to lung transplants. Our aim was to assess the usefulness of the combined analysis of BALF cellularity and EOS for the diagnosis of ACR in lung transplant recipients. This is a retrospective study of findings observed simultaneously in 887 transbronchial biopsies (TBB), BALF, and blood samples obtained from 363 LTx patients transplanted between 2014 and 2020. The variables collected were: demographics, ACR degree, BALF cellularity, and simultaneous blood EOS counts. The lymphocyte count in BALF was significantly higher in patients with ACR than in those without (11.35% vs. 6.11%; p < 0.001). In parallel, EOS counts were also significantly higher in patients with ACR than in the non-ACR group (EOS 213 ± 206/mm3 vs. 83 ± 129/mm3; p < 0.001). Increases in both parameters were associated with an increased risk of ACR (lymphocytes OR 1.100; 95% CI 1.080–1.131; EOS OR 1.460; 95% CI 1.350–1.580). The diagnostic specificity of ACR for a lymphocyte count > 12% was 71.1%, which increased to 95.8% when taking into account a simultaneous blood EOS count > 200/mm3. Simultaneous assessment of BALF lymphocyte counts and blood eosinophil counts may be useful for diagnosing ACR in patients with risk factors for TBB or in the presence of inconclusive histological samples.
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
Cell and Organ Transplantology
Cell and Organ Transplantology Medicine-Transplantation
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信