Diagnosis and outcome of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients after bronchoscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We wished to explore the use, diagnostic capability and outcomes of bronchoscopy added to noninvasive testing in immunocompromised patients. In this setting, an inability to identify the cause of acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure is associated with worse outcome. Every effort should be made to obtain a diagnosis, either with noninvasive testing alone or combined with bronchoscopy. However, our understanding of the risks and benefits of bronchoscopy remains uncertain. Patients and methods This was a pre-planned secondary analysis of Efraim, a prospective, multinational, observational study of 1611 immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We compared patients with noninvasive testing only to those who had also received bronchoscopy by bivariate analysis and after propensity score matching. Results Bronchoscopy was performed in 618 (39%) patients who were more likely to have haematological malignancy and a higher severity of illness score. Bronchoscopy alone achieved a diagnosis in 165 patients (27% adjusted diagnostic yield). Bronchoscopy resulted in a management change in 236 patients (38% therapeutic yield). Bronchoscopy was associated with worsening of respiratory status in 69 (11%) patients. Bronchoscopy was associated with higher ICU (40%versus28%; p<0.0001) and hospital mortality (49%versus41%; p=0.003). The overall rate of undiagnosed causes was 13%. After propensity score matching, bronchoscopy remained associated with increased risk of hospital mortality (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.08–1.81). Conclusions Bronchoscopy was associated with improved diagnosis and changes in management, but also increased hospital mortality. Balancing risk and benefit in individualised cases should be investigated further.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".