Premium
Common respiratory viral infections: Bilateral versus unilateral bronchoalveolar lavage versus endotracheal aspiration
Author(s) -
Anastasiou Olympia E.,
Theodoropoulos Fotis,
Taube Christian,
Fiedler Melanie,
Dittmer Ulf
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of medical virology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.782
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1096-9071
pISSN - 0146-6615
DOI - 10.1002/jmv.26477
Subject(s) - rhinovirus , bronchoalveolar lavage , medicine , respiratory system , virology , virus , human metapneumovirus , enterovirus , respiratory disease , human bocavirus , immunology , respiratory tract infections , lung
Data about the diagnostic efficiency of bilateral bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples and endotracheal aspirates (EA) testing for common viral respiratory infections are scarce. We analyzed data from 167 cases, where bilateral BAL samples were tested, and from 101 cases, where BAL samples and EA were tested. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed with the fast track diagnostics viral respiratory panel, producing data on the adenovirus, coronavirus, enterovirus, human metapneumovirus, bocavirus, influenza virus, parainfluenza virus, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus status of patients with respiratory disease symptoms. In the bilateral BAL cohort, 46 (27.5%) cases were positive for at least one of the viruses mentioned above in both samples. Discrepant results (virus not detected on one side) were seen in six (3.6%) cases. In the BAL versus EA cohort, 12 (11.9%) cases were positive in both materials, discrepant results (only one material being positive) were observed in 11 (10.9%) cases, with seven (63.6%) BAL samples, and four (36.4%) EA being positive. Bilateral sampling does not significantly improve the diagnostic efficiency of BAL for the detection of common respiratory viral pathogens via PCR. The diagnostic quality of EA and BAL samples for the detection of common viral respiratory pathogens is comparable.