No abstract

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection due to the spread of a novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), resulting in a wide range of clinical features, from asymptomatic carriers to ARDS. The gold standard for diagnosis is nucleic acid detection by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in nasopharyngeal swabs. However, due to limitations in this technique's sensitivity, thoracic imaging plays a crucial, complementary role in diagnostic evaluation and also allows for detection of atypical findings and potential alternative targets for sampling (eg, pleural effusion). Although less common, pleural involvement has been described in a minority of patients. This report describes the first case of reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in pleural fluid obtained by means of ultrasoundguided thoracentesis, and its main characteristics are detailed. Pleural effusion is not a common finding in COVID-19 infection, but a prompt recognition of this potential localization may be useful to optimize diagnostic evaluation as well as the management of these patients.

The local application of silver nitrate through a flexible bronchoscopic brush produced a burn and healing process on the mucosa of small bronchopleural fistulae of the central airways, leading to effective and lasting treatment in most cases.

Background: Conventional transbronchial needle aspiration (c-TBNA) and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are both valuable diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of hilar/mediastinal lesions. Although a superiority of EBUS-TBNA over c-TBNA may be expected, evidence-based data on a direct comparison between these 2 procedures are still lacking. Objectives: We aimed to test the superiority of EBUS-TBNA over c-TBNA in a randomized trial and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of a staged strategy, including c-TBNA as initial test followed by EBUS-TBNA, in case of inconclusive results at rapid on-site evaluation. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to either the EBUS-TBNA or c-TBNA group. The primary endpoint was to test the superiority of EBUS-TBNA sensitivity over c-TBNA. The secondary endpoints included the sensitivity of the staged strategy, as well as costs and safety related to each procedure and to their sequential combination. Results: A total of 253 patients were randomized to either EBUS-TBNA (n = 127) or c-TBNA (n = 126), and 31 patients of the c-TBNA group subsequently underwent EBUS-TBNA. The sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was higher, but not significantly superior to that of c-TBNA (respectively. 92% [95% CI 87-97] and 82% [95% CI 75-90], p > 0.05). The sensitivity of the staged strategy was 94% (95% CI 89-98). No major adverse events occurred. Conclusions: EBUS-TBNA was the single best diagnostic tool, although not significantly superior to c-TBNA. Due to the favorable cost-effectiveness profile of their sequential combination, in selected scenarios with a high probability of success from the standard procedure, these should not be necessarily intended as competitive and the staged strategy could be considered in clinical practice.

This study demonstrates that, when insertion through the bronchial wall is possible, TBNF safely provides diagnostic histologic specimens of subcarinal lymphadenopathy in a large percentage of cases.