Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Bronchoscopes”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources

[Bronchoscopic specimen collection, role of the protected specimen brush in lower respiratory tract infections].

INTRODUCTION: The ineffectiveness of microbiological methods in the lower respiratory tract infections are caused by anachronistic sampling methods. Authors checked the protected specimen brush effectiveness and those of the influencing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 103 patients were involved in the study. The causative agents were identified in 44 cases. These results were compared to last year's classic sampling techniques and they experienced 20.4% improvement of the sensitivity. Further increasing in effectiveness can be reached if we perform bacteriological sampling after the first unsuccessful antibiotic treatment was performed. Out of 103 examined patients only 69 underwent antibiotic treatment. In the case of 13 patients after the course of one type antibiotic treatment 10 positive bacteriological cultures were positive. In the case of 31 patients 2 types of antibiotics were administered sequentially and examined afterwards and the authors found 15 positive bacteriological cultures. In the case of 25 patients the administered sequentially 3 times of antibiotics and examined afterwards, 6 cultures were positive. CONCLUSION: The examinations prove that the protected specimen brush, used in time, raises the sensitivity of microbiological processes.

Adult↗