Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • For authors
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Author FAQs
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

Sputum induction versus gastric washing for the diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease

B. Heym, A. Beauchet, M.T. Ngo, J-L. Gaillard, T. Chinet
European Respiratory Journal 2010 36: 448-450; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00192209
B. Heym
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
A. Beauchet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M.T. Ngo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J-L. Gaillard
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
T. Chinet
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: thierry.chinet@apr.aphp.fr
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editors:

The diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease is based primarily on the isolation of mycobacteria in sputum specimens. The collection of at least three samples of spontaneously expectorated sputum on three different days is the standard diagnostic procedure for patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis and non-tuberculous mycobacterial lung disease 1, 2. For patients who are unable to expectorate, bronchial secretions, aspirated by fiberoptic bronchoscopy, or gastric washings (GWs) are collected 1, 3. These procedures require the patient to be hospitalised, are fastidious and unpleasant for the patient, and the yield of GWs for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis is considered to be rather low 3.

Another option is sputum induction (SI) with nebulised hypertonic saline 4, 5. SI does not necessitate the patient to be hospitalised. However, it is a complicated procedure that requires trained staff and respiratory isolation conditions 4. The diagnostic value of this procedure is still debated: several studies have reported that sputum induction has a rather low diagnostic yield 6; other studies have found that SI compares favourably with GW and bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis 4. We therefore decided to conduct a prospective study to compare the diagnostic value of SI with that of GW in adult patients with suspected pulmonary mycobacterial disease.

The study population was comprised of consecutive patients admitted to the Dept of Pulmonary Diseases of Ambroise Paré University Hospital (Boulogne, France) between January 2003 and March 2009 because of a clinical suspicion of pulmonary mycobacterial disease. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for the Protection of Subjects Participating in Biomedical Research at our institution. Patients were included in the study if a spontaneously expectorated sputum sample could not be obtained or was insufficient in volume.

A total of 295 patients were enrolled in the study. 64% of the patients were male and the mean age was 53.3 yrs. The HIV status was positive in nine patients, negative in 154 and unknown in 132. Approximately 45% of the patients were of French origin and 36% were of African origin. Based on clinical, radiological, biological and microbiological criteria, a total of 116 (39%) patients were considered to have mycobacterial disease: active tuberculosis (n = 85), latent tuberculosis (n = 9), previously healed tuberculosis (n = 5), nontuberculous mycobacterial disease (n = 17).

A single SI procedure was performed within the first 3 days of admission, and GWs were obtained on three consecutive mornings at approximately 06:00 h following a night in hospital (one procedure per day). SI was performed under the supervision of a trained physical therapist. First, all subjects were administered 0.5 mg ipratropium via an ultrasonic nebuliser (LS 290; Systam, Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France). A 5.85% hypertonic saline (Proamp, Lyon, France) was then delivered using the same nebuliser for ∼10 min. GWs were performed by nasal introduction of tubing into the stomach, injection and aspiration of ∼50 mL of sterile normal saline. A randomly chosen subgroup of 61 French-speaking patients was asked to assess the diagnostic procedure and to indicate a preference for GW or SI.

Respiratory samples were immediately transported to the microbiology laboratory, where microscopic examination, culturing and identification of mycobacterial species were performed by standard procedures 1. Species of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex were identified using the Accuprobe® system (bioMérieux, Marcy-l'Etoile, France), whereas non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) were identified by amplification and sequencing of part of the hsp65 gene as previously described 7. Statistical analysis was performed using the MacNemar test. A p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Sputum induction was successful in all but 16 patients (95% successful). 22 patients underwent two sputum induction procedures. A total of 273 (93%) patients had at least one GW. Three specimens were obtained from GW in 199 (67%) patients, and two specimens were obtained from GW in 53 (18%) patients. Overall, 259 (88%) patients had at least one SI procedure and one GW procedure. No serious adverse reaction attributable to the procedure occurred during or after SI or GW. 53 (87%) out of the 61 patients who were asked if they had a preference for SI or GW preferred SI, whereas only eight (13%) patients favoured the GW procedure.

A total of 1,047 respiratory specimens were obtained from the 295 patients: 746 from GW and 301 from SI. Overall, 71 specimens from 29 patients stained positive (27 with M. tuberculosis, one with Mycobacterium intracellulare, and one with Mycobacterium xenopi). A positive culture was obtained from 178 (17%) specimens from 69 (23%) patients: 152 grew M. tuberculosis, whereas NTM were isolated from 26 specimens. The 152 culture samples positive for M. tuberculosis were obtained from 55 patients, whereas the 26 cultures positive for NTM were obtained from 14 patients (M. avium: n = 5; M. intracellulare: n = 2; M. xenopi: n = 4; Mycobacterium chelonae: n = 2; and Mycobacterium mucogenicum: n = 1). No smear-positive, culture-negative specimens were detected.

M. tuberculosis was cultured from 49 SI samples (49 patients) and 103 GW samples (first GW sample in 43 patients and up to three samples in 50 patients). NTM were grown in 12 SI samples and 14 GW samples. A positive stain was observed more often with SI (46% of 61 culture-positive samples) than with GW (38% of 117 culture-positive samples), but this difference was not statistically significant. Among the 27 patients with tuberculosis and a positive sample upon direct examination, a positive stain was observed with both GW and SI in 21 (78%) patients; GWs were positive but SI was negative in one (4%) patient, and SI was positive whereas GWs were negative in five (18%) patients.

Among the 279 patients who underwent SI, a positive culture was obtained in 61 (22%). Among the 273 subjects who underwent GW, the first sample grew mycobacteria in 45 (16%) patients. Taking into account the positivity of any of three GWs increased the number of patients with positive GW cultures from 45 to 56 (21%). Assuming that in our population of 295 patients, the 69 patients with at least one positive mycobacterial culture from SI or GWs represented all patients with active mycobacterial disease, the sensitivity of SI was 88% compared with 65% for the first GW procedure and 81% for up to three GW procedures. Assuming that the 55 patients with at least one culture positive for M. tuberculosis from SI or GWs represented all patients with active tuberculosis, the sensitivity of SI was 89% compared with 78% for the first GW procedure and 91% for up to three GW procedures.

The comparison of the diagnostic yields of SI and of GW in the 259 patients who underwent both procedures is presented in table 1. Sputum induction displayed a significantly higher yield than the first GW (20.5% versus 16.2%; p = 0.03; OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.1–11.2). The diagnostic yields of SI and GW were similar when up to three GW procedures were compared with one SI procedure (20.5% versus 20.1%; p = 0.81; OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.4–3.1). We found no statistically significant difference in the clinical characteristics of patients with a positive culture using one procedure and a negative culture with the other.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1– Comparison of sputum induction with the first gastric washing and with up to three gastric washings in the 259 patients who underwent both procedures

Only three published studies have compared the performance of GW and SI in the diagnosis of mycobacterial lung disease using a modern SI technique that includes hypertonic saline 4, 8, 9. Zar et al. 8 studied a total of 250 children with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis in South Africa and reported that the diagnostic yield from SIs was better than that from GWs. However, this study compared three SI with three GW procedures. Hatherill et al. 9 reviewed the database records of 1,654 children with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis in South Africa. They observed that the diagnostic yield of a single SI sample was equivalent to that of a GW sample for culture confirmation of tuberculosis. The authors attributed the discrepancy between the results of these two studies to the fact that the patients in their study had milder tuberculosis compared to those in the study by Zar et al. 8. Brown et al. 4 assessed the yield of specimens obtained using SIs and GWs in 140 adults with suspected tuberculosis who were unable to expectorate. They found that the use of three to five SI samples resulted in the detection of more cases than the use of three GWs (39% versus 30%), suggesting that SI was a more sensitive technique than GW. Our study extends these results by directly comparing a single SI procedure with one GW, and reveals the superior sensitivity of SI. However, according to several authors, the yield of multiple SIs is better than that of a single procedure 5, 8, 9. Therefore, even though our results found no statistical difference between a single SI procedure and three GWs in terms of diagnostic yield, the fact that nine patients had a negative result with SI and a positive result with GWs suggests that at least two adequate SI samples should be obtained from patients with suspected pulmonary mycobacterial disease who are unable to expectorate. In addition to a higher diagnostic yield, SI has the advantage that it can be performed in an outpatient setting, several times on the same day and its cost is relatively low 4, 9, 10. However, careful environmental control should be undertaken to prevent nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis to patients and healthcare workers, especially the physical therapists who perform the SI procedures 11.

In conclusion, we have shown that SI has a significantly higher diagnostic yield for pulmonary mycobacterial disease than GW in patients who cannot produce sputum. In addition, SI was preferred to GW by the majority of the surveyed patients. These results indicate that SI should be the standard noninvasive technique to obtain specimens for the microbiological diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the physical therapists, M. Hamon, C. Eloy-Mitton, M-C. Puech, and P. Cornu (all Dept of Pulmonary Diseases, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, Boulogne, France) for their active participation in this study.

Footnotes

  • Statement of Interest

    None declared.

    • ©ERS 2010

    REFERENCES

    1. ↵
      Diagnostic standards and classification of tuberculosis in adults and children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: 1376–1395.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Leonard MK,
      2. Osterholt D,
      3. Kourbatova EV,
      4. et al
      . How many sputum samples are necessary to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis? Am J Infect Control 2005; 33: 58–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    3. ↵
      1. Dickson SJ,
      2. Brent A,
      3. Davidson RN,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of bronchoscopy and gastric washings in the investigation of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2003; 37: 1649–1653.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    4. ↵
      1. Brown M,
      2. Varia H,
      3. Bassett P,
      4. et al
      . Prospective study of sputum induction, gastric washing, and bronchoalveolar lavage for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in patients who are unable to expectorate. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 1415–1420.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Chang KC,
      2. Leung CC,
      3. Yew WW,
      4. et al
      . Supervised and induced sputum among patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis. Eur Respir J 2008; 31: 1085–1090.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. ↵
      1. Schoch OD,
      2. Rieder P,
      3. Tueller C,
      4. et al
      . Diagnostic yield of sputum, induced sputum, and bronchoscopy after radiologic tuberculosis screening. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2007; 175: 80–86.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Ringuet H,
      2. Akoua-Koffi C,
      3. Honore S,
      4. et al
      . hsp65 sequencing for identification of rapidly growing mycobacteria. J Clin Microbiol 1999; 37: 852–857.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Zar HJ,
      2. Hanslo D,
      3. Apolles P,
      4. et al
      . Induced sputum versus gastric lavage for microbiological confirmation of pulmonary tuberculosis in infants and young children: a prospective study. Lancet 2005; 365: 130–134.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    9. ↵
      1. Hatherill M,
      2. Hawkridge T,
      3. Zar HJ,
      4. et al
      . Induced sputum or gastric lavage for community-based diagnosis of childhood pulmonary tuberculosis. Arch Dis Child 2009; 94: 195–201.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Conde MB,
      2. Soares SL,
      3. Mello FC,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of sputum induction with fiberoptic bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of tuberculosis: experience at an acquired immune deficiency syndrome reference center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162: 2238–2240.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    11. ↵
      1. Maartens G
      . Advances in adult pulmonary tuberculosis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 2002; 8: 173–177.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    View Abstract
    PreviousNext
    Back to top
    View this article with LENS
    Vol 36 Issue 2 Table of Contents
    European Respiratory Journal: 36 (2)
    • Table of Contents
    • Table of Contents (PDF)
    • Index by author
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Sputum induction versus gastric washing for the diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Print
    Alerts
    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Sputum induction versus gastric washing for the diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease
    B. Heym, A. Beauchet, M.T. Ngo, J-L. Gaillard, T. Chinet
    European Respiratory Journal Aug 2010, 36 (2) 448-450; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00192209

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero

    Share
    Sputum induction versus gastric washing for the diagnosis of pulmonary mycobacterial disease
    B. Heym, A. Beauchet, M.T. Ngo, J-L. Gaillard, T. Chinet
    European Respiratory Journal Aug 2010, 36 (2) 448-450; DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00192209
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Full Text (PDF)

    Jump To

    • Article
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • REFERENCES
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One

    More in this TOC Section

    • Fibrosis in dyskeratosis congenita with TINF2 mutation
    • Pneumomediastinum and dehydration in cystic fibrosis
    • How can we achieve better prevention of TB among contacts?
    Show more Letters

    Related Articles

    Navigate

    • Home
    • Current issue
    • Archive

    About the ERJ

    • Journal information
    • Editorial board
    • Reviewers
    • CME
    • Press
    • Permissions and reprints
    • Advertising

    The European Respiratory Society

    • Society home
    • myERS
    • Privacy policy
    • Accessibility

    ERS publications

    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS books online
    • ERS Bookshop

    Help

    • Feedback

    For authors

    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • ERS author centre

    For readers

    • Alerts
    • Subjects
    • Podcasts
    • RSS

    Subscriptions

    • Accessing the ERS publications

    Contact us

    European Respiratory Society
    442 Glossop Road
    Sheffield S10 2PX
    United Kingdom
    Tel: +44 114 2672860
    Email: journals@ersnet.org

    ISSN

    Print ISSN:  0903-1936
    Online ISSN: 1399-3003

    Copyright © 2021 by the European Respiratory Society