Next Article in Journal
Interaction of Microbes with Microplastics and Nanoplastics in the Agroecosystems—Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance
Next Article in Special Issue
Trends from the Last Decade with Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Lung Disease (NTM-LD): Clinicians’ Perspectives in Regional Center of Pulmonology in Bydgoszcz, Poland
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Characterization and Expression Analysis of IL-10 and IL-6 in Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Previous Article in Special Issue
First Case Reports of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial (NTM) Lung Disease in Ecuador: Important Lessons to Learn
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/pathogens12070887
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease, Destructive Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis

by
Dmitrii Giller
1,
Galina Scherbakova
1,
Inga Enilenis
1,
Ivan Martel
1,
Oleg Kesaev
1,
Vadim Koroev
1,
Anna Popova
1,
Alexandr Ilyukhin
1,
Valeria Basangova
1,
Sergey Smerdin
2,
Shokirjon Mayusupov
3,
Sergey Saenko
4,
Olga Frolova
1,5,
Veronika Vinarskaya
1 and
Lyudmila Severova
1,*
1
Department of Phthisiopulmonology and Thoracic Surgery Named after M.I. Perelman, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University), Moscow 119991, Russia
2
State Budgetary Healthcare Institution of the Moscow Region “Moscow Regional Clinical Anti-Tuberculosis Dispensary”, Sukmanikha Village, Shchelkovsky District, Moscow 170555, Russia
3
Republican Specialized Scientific-Practical Medical Center for Phthisiology and Pulmonology, St. Majlisy, Shaykhotokhur District, Tashkent 100071, Uzbekistan
4
Rostov Regional Clinical Center of Phthisiopulmonology, St. Orskaya, 24, Rostov-on-Don 344065, Russia
5
Department of Phthisiopulmonology, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Moscow 117997, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pathogens 2023, 12(7), 887; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070887
Submission received: 24 May 2023 / Revised: 20 June 2023 / Accepted: 27 June 2023 / Published: 29 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria (NTM))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A misdiagnosis of isolated pulmonary tuberculosis (pTB) is highly likely when a patient has nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTMPD) or a combination of nontuberculous mycobacterium pulmonary disease and pulmonary tuberculosis. Frequently, bacterial excretion is absent or only Mycobacteria tuberculosis (MBT) is found. This often results in an incorrect diagnosis and subsequent misinformed treatment regimes. In order to determine possible clinical and radiographic differences between patients with NTMPD (Group 1), destructive drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (Group 3) and a combination of NTMPD and pTB (Group 2) we compare clinical and radiographic signs for these three patient groups. When comparing with Group 3 (2.5%), Groups 1 (25%) and 2 (17.4%) have a substantially higher incidence of pulmonary haemorrhages. Thus, upon clinically observing the combination of pTB and NTMPD, there are no pathognomonic clinical and radiographic detected symptoms. However, the presence of an indolent course, hemoptysis and bronchiectasis in the presence of acid-fast bacteria (or identified MBT) in the sputum makes it possible to suspect not simple pTB, but a combination of pTB and NTMPD. To clarify this necessitated in-depth bacteriological examination.

1. Introduction

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are ubiquitous in the environment and found in most water sources and soils. Furthermore, NTM are conditionally pathogenic. Consequently, a single isolation of these bacteria from the respiratory tract only indicates body media colonisation and does not unequivocally define the presence of disease [1,2,3,4,5,6,7].
The likelihood of misdiagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (pTB) exists when a patient has a combination of nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTMPD) and pTB, or simply NTMPD. Doctors usually do not consider that an absence of bacterial excretion or only Mycobacteria tuberculosis complex (MBT) could be presented when a patient has a combination of NTMPD and pTB. In addition, similar clinical and radiographic signs make a differential diagnosis between these two diseases difficult [4,7,8,9,10].
It seems reasonable to evaluate the similarities and differences in the clinical and radiographic manifestations of pTB and NTMPD in combination when comparing isolated extensively drug-resistant fibro-cavitary TB and isolated NTMPD [4,7,8,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. This may allow the physician to identify situations where additional examinations are required to detect not only MBT but also NTM, since the finding of NTM in sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, biopsies and operative material forms the basis for a reliable verification of NTMPD.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

The medical records of 2432 patients who have had lung surgery performed between January 2011 to December 2017 at Sechenov University Phthisiopulmonology Clinical Hospital were analysed. A total of 2432 patient records were examined. Overall, 1918 patients had tuberculosis, 20 NTMPD, 23 with a combination of pTB and NTMPD, and 471 other pulmonary diseases. We included all 20 patients with NTMPD in Group 1, and constructed Group 2 with 23 patients having a combination of NTMPD and pTB. However, during the period under consideration, 311 patients with destructive extensive drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis (XDR pTB) were identified, of which 40 patients were selected randomly via a random number selector which operated on a list with numbers corresponding to those assigned for each patient. These 40 patients constituted Group 3 (Figure 1).
We have already presented the main aspects of study design, conservative treatment and surgery in the article “Surgical Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis” [26]. In order to compare clinical and radiographic signs of NTMPD, XDR pTB, or a combination of NTMPD and pTB, additional data were analysed. All patients’ radiographic data from disease identification up to surgery were analysed and summarised. At a minimum, one high-resolution CT scan has been performed for each patient prior to surgery. The formation of comparison Group 3 was because patients with XDR pTB are generally considered to be a severe group of patients, who respond with difficulty to chemotherapeutic treatment. Surgery on such patients is associated with greater risk and difficulties than surgical treatment for other forms of tuberculosis [27,28,29,30,31].
Patients in the list for potential inclusion into Group 3 did not include those admitted before January 2011 or after December 2017, those who received lung resections, and those who did not have NTMPD, destructive extensive drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis or a combination of NTMPD and pTB. Such patients did not meet our selection criteria.

2.2. Treatment Regime

All patients with NTMPD were diagnosed in accordance with the ATS/IDSA recommendations, 2007 [2] and were HIV-negative. Antibiotic treatment was prescribed at the hospital where a diagnosis was established. In some cases diagnosis has been clarified only after surgery. Treatment for Groups 1 and 2 has also been described in “Surgical Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis” [26].
Destructive extensive drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis was diagnosed according to extensive investigation and the analysis of microbiological, cultural and molecular genetic research methods, radiological data and medical history data. Chemotherapy was prescribed according to Russian Federation government regulations, clinical guidelines and data on individual drug susceptibility of mycobacteria in patients (Table S1) [26,32,33].
A multi-disciplinary medical commission consisting of a pulmonologist, phthisiatrician, thoracic surgeon, epidemiologist, and anesthesiologist arbitrated on the need for lung surgery. Indications for surgical treatment were the ineffectiveness of adequate antibiotic therapy, continued high risk of bacterial excretion or recurrence of bacterial excretion, the presence of cavities in the lung tissue, and complications such as hemoptysis, pneumothorax, and unclear diagnosis.
Postoperative management included the continuation of antibiotic therapy, its correction when new data on drug resistance appeared after an analysis of the operative material, the prescription of seasonal courses of chemoprophylaxis (Russian government regulation [32,33]), and, if necessary, regular observation and annual post-operative X-ray examinations for at least 3 years. Patients diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis were registered with a phthisiatrician at their local hospital and received regular follow-up and annual radiographic examinations for at least three years after surgery.

2.3. Statistical Analysis Methodology

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. The significance of the difference in frequencies was determined via the chi-square test, in a pairwise comparison using the exact version of the test. Due to the small number of patients, when comparing the distributions of scale-type variables in groups, the nonparametric Mann–Whitney test was applied, then the data were presented as medians and quartiles. Confidence bounds for frequency were calculated using the binomial distribution. Differences were considered statistically significant for p < 0.05; in multiple comparisons, the possibility of false positive differences being taken into account.

3. Results

There are relatively more female patients in Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison with Group 3. Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences when considering age and gender between groups were determined (Table 1 and Table 2).
Bacterial excretion was indicated for 69 (83.13%) patients in all groups. Patients suffer bacterial excretion in Groups 1 and 2 less frequently than in Group 3 (p < 0.001) (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
In Group 1, 9 (45%) patients were positive for M. avium, 3 (15%) for M. fortuitum, 3 (15%)—M. abcessus, 2 (10%)—M. xenopi and 1 (5%) for M. kansasii, M. chelonae and M. simiae.
In Group 2, 12 (52.17%) patients were positive for M. avium, 2 (8.69%) for M. fortuitum, 4 (17.39%)—M. kansasii, 2 (8.69%)—M. abcessus and 1 (4.34%) for M. chelonae, M. simiae, and M. xenopi.
Disease duration prior to surgery in Group 3 was statistically significantly greater than Groups 1 and 2 (Table 3).
Lung cavitary lesions were found in 77 (92.8%) patients. Only single cavitary lesions were observed in 32 (38.6%) patients and multiply in 45 (54.2%). There were 59 (71.1%) patients with unilateral cavitary lesions and 18 (21.7%) with bilateral. The frequency of multiple and bilateral cavitary lesions was less in Group 1 in comparison with Groups 2 and 3. The cavitary lesion diameters primarily ranged from 2 to 4 cm in all three groups of patients (Table 4 and Table 5). More than 10 lung segments were damaged in 19 (47.5%) Group 3 patients, in 5 (25.0%) Group 1 patients and in 5 (21.74%) Group 2 patients.
There were a range of radiographic signs (Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7). Most patients with NTMPD (Group 1) and with a combination of NTMPD and pTB (Group 2) have suffered unilateral lung damage—65.0% and 73.9%, respectively. Bilateral lung damage was observed in most patients with XDR pTB (Group 3, 65.2%). The pathological process was limited (up to three segments) in half of patients in Group 1, in Group 2 the majority (82.6%) suffered a widespread process while in Group 3 the incidence of widespread lung damage reached 97.5%.
Apical and posterior segments of the upper lobes were the main localisation of lung lesions in most patients (82.5%), superior segments of the lover lobes rarely being damaged (17.5%). The main lesion in NTMPD and combination of NTMPD with pTB was often localized in apical and posterior segments of the upper lobes (35% and 56.5%, respectively). However, localisation in segments atypical for tuberculosis in NTMPD was also not uncommon. The main lesion in S4 and S5 was observed in 30% of patients in Group 1 and 8.7% Group 2. S6 suffered damage in 20% and 13% of patients respectively, S3 in 5% and 13%, and the basal segments in 10% and 8.7%.
There could be more than one radiographic sign for one patient (Table 7). In Group 1 nodule lesions were found in 10 (50%) patients, thin-walled cavities in 8 (40%), thick-walled cavities in 1 (5%), round shadows more than 1 cm in diameter with destruction in 5 (25%), without destruction in 2 (10%), multifocal bronchiectasis in combination with other manifestations in 4 (20%), lung infiltrates in 4 (20%), ground-glass areas in 1 (5%), pericissuritis in 1 (5%), volume reduction of the lung lobe or the lung in 4 (20%), thickening of the bronchial wall in 4 (20%), enlarged intrathoracic lung lymph nodes in 5 (25%) and pneumofibrosis in 2 (10%). Patients with XDR pTB had thin-walled cavities, nodule distribution along with volume reduction of the lung lobe or the lung and pneumofibosis in all cases. In addition, diffuse shadowing (infiltrations) indicated itself more commonly in Group 3 than in Groups 1 and 2. This was the primary difference between Group 3 and Groups 1 and 2.
In total 72 patients had concomitant illnesses or conditions. A total of 180 cases of concomitant pathology were noted. Chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were the most common conditions (41 patients). In Group 1, 2 patients had diseases of the gastrointestinal tract, in Group 2—4 and in Group 3—12. There was liver pathology in 4 patients of Group 1, in 7 of Group 2 and in 12 of Group 3. Heart diseases were identified in 6 patients in Group 1, 5 patients in Group 2 and 14 patients in Group 3.
Many patients had complications of underlying pulmonary process (Table 8). Most common were respiratory failure (RF) in 63 patients, specific involvement of the trachea, larynx, or bronchi in 14, and hemoptysis in 10 patients. The frequency of complications was compared, the frequency of hemoptysis and respiratory failure having statistically significant differences depending on the diagnosis (p = 0.027, p = 0.005, respectively). Significant differences between groups of patients were not revealed when analysing other complications of pulmonary process (p = 0.266, p = 0.145, p = 0.272, p = 0.203, p = 0.069, p = 0.245, respectively).
The frequency analysis of complaints (Table 9) for weakness, shortness of breath or hemoptysis depended on the final diagnosis and showed significant differences (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p = 0.027, respectively). Shortness of breath and weakness were more common in patients with XDR pTB and hemoptysis than in patients with NTMPD. When assessing the incidence of cough, low-grade fever, pain in the chest, acute onset and loss of appetite, it was not possible to establish statistically significant differences between patients with different diagnoses (p = 0.080, p = 0.963, p = 0.668, p = 0.279, p = 0.324, respectively).
Overall, 156 operations were performed for 83 patients: 28 operations on 20 patients in Group 1, 41 on 23 patients in Group 2 and 87 on 40 patients in Group 3 (Table 10).
In Group 3 (XDR pTB) there were 4 (4.6%) wedge resections, 11 (12.6%) segmentomies, 10 (11.5%) lobectomies, 7 (8.0%) lobectomies with segmentectomy, 1 (1.1%) bilobectomy, 8 (9.2%) pneumonectomies, 5 (5.7%) transsternal occlusion of the main bronchus, 4 (4.6%) thoracocentesis, 31 (35.6%) thoracoplastics, 2 (2.3%) rethorcoplastics, 1 (1.1%) endobronchial valve and 3 (3.4%) others.
Out of 87 operations, 41 lung resections were performed, of which 26 (63.4%) were video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Out of 33 thoracoplasties and rethoracoplasties, 28 (84.8%) were also performed through VATS access using the original technique [1]. Generally, VATS was performed during 54 (62.1%) operations in Group 3.

4. Discussion

Patients of all three groups had a high incidence of lung cavitary lesions (70% in Group 1, 100% in Group 2 and 100% in Group 3). The difference between patients with NTMPD and pTB cannot be evaluated since the presence of cavitary lesions was the defining criteria for Group 3; this does not contradict many authors who note that cavitary lesion is common among patients with NTMPD [34,35,36]. The presence of complications of the pulmonary process (50.0%; 73.9%; 60.0%, respectively), respiratory failure (50.0%; 91.3%; 80.0%, respectively), concomitant diseases (80.0%; 87.0%; 90.0%, respectively), preservation of bacterial excretion before surgery (50%; 73.9%; 97.5%, respectively) and the presence of multiple and extensive drug resistance among patients who were able to test for DR (100%; 93.3%; 100%). NTMPD clinical signs were less severe than XDR pTB as seen in Table 8. Clinical manifestations in patients with a combination of NTMPD and pTB were less severe than in Group 3, but more so than in Group 1. Such findings were expected. They further demonstrated that, clinically, the signs and symptoms of NTMPD are varied and nonspecific. This does not contradict most existing publications [37,38,39,40].
However, symptoms such as hemoptysis occurred much more frequently in Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison with Group 3. It is well known that hemoptysis is common among patients with pTB [41,42,43,44,45]. On the other hand, there are not too many trials that investigate hemoptysis among patients with NTMPD [46,47], and we do not find any among patients with a combination of NTMPD and pTB. It is important to note that there is at a minimum one trial where the incidence of hemoptysis was not significantly different between patients with pTB and NTMPD [48]. The lower severity of the clinical picture for Group 2 compared with Group 3 was apparently associated with a longer duration of the disease and a more severe clinical form of tuberculosis (fibrous-cavernous in all patients of Group 3) (Table 3).
Group 1 has the greatest variance in radiographic features. Patients with XDR pTB had no such variation. In patients with a combination of NTMPD and pTB, the radiographic picture included the same range of change as in patients of Groups 1 and 3. However, despite most authors noting a similar radiographic picture of tuberculosis and NTMPD [34,49,50], in 14 (32.6%) patients of Groups 1 and 2, multifocal bronchiectasis was detected, while in the group of patients with XDR pTB it occured 13 times less frequently and was found only in 1 (2.5%) patient. The presence of bronchiectasis allows for possible mycobacterial infection, and the presence of nodule distribution with severe pneumofibrosis is more common in tuberculosis [50,51,52,53,54,55].
For most patients in Groups 1 and 2, pathological processes in the lungs were unilateral (65% and 73%, respectively), while bilateral processes prevailed (62%) in Group 3. A limited (up to three segments) process was observed in half of the cases for patients of Group 1, whereas in Group 2, the majority (82.6%) of patients had a widespread pulmonary process. In Group 3, the frequency of widespread lung damage constituted 97.5% of patients.
The primary lung lesions of pTB were commonly localised in the apex and posterior segments of the superior lung lobe (82.5%). Localization in S6 is uncommon (17.5%). The primary lung lesions of NTMPD and a combination of NTMPD and pTB were also commonly localised in the apex and posterior segments of the superior lung lobe (35% and 56.5%, respectively). However, localisation in segments atypical for tuberculosis was not rare (S5 in 30% of patients of Group 1 and 8.7% of Group 2; S3 in 5% and 13%, respectively; basal segments—10% and 8.7% respectively).
Our results show that there is no pathognomonic radiographic appearance in Groups 1 and 2. The disease was usually unilateral. A similar distribution of infection was reported previously [56,57].
In addition, we would like to note that some Group 2 patients had long courses of chemotherapy prior to surgery, of duration longer than 6 months. One possible reason for this is the varied course of disease. Other reasons include drug resistance, bad compliance and that the TB treatment could be not effective in suppressing both TB and NTMPD simultaneously, along with other undetermined causes.
Weaknesses in our study are its retrospective nature and a relatively small number of observations. This does not allow us to draw definitive conclusions. Despite this, the rarity of NTMPD and its diagnostic difficulties obliges us to share our experiences with the wider medical community.

5. Conclusions

From the data, patients with NTMPD have a higher frequency of pulmonary haemorrhages than those without NTMPD. This is evident from the higher incidence of pulmonary haemorrhages in Group 1 (25%) and Group 2 (17.4%) patients compared with Group 3 (2.5%). In Group 3 there was the greatest proportion of pathological processes per patient (the number of lung cavitary lesions, the frequency of bilateral lesions and the number of affected lung segments). Group 1 had substantially lower numbers. The combination of NTMPD and pTB (Group 2) occupied an intermediate position in terms of prevalence and severity of such processes, being significantly higher than those of Group 1.
Thus, in the clinical picture of the combination NTMPD and pTB, there are no pathognomonic clinical and radiographic symptoms, which is noted by most authors [2,3,4,5]. However, the presence of an indolent course, hemoptysis and bronchiectasis in the presence of MBT in the sputum makes it possible to suspect a combination of NTMPD and pTB, which requires in-depth bacteriological examination and, additionally, more careful re-examination for radiographic and clinical signs. In 12 patients (52.2%) of the second group, we managed to make the correct diagnosis only after the operation, taking into account the data of the morphological and bacteriological study of the operative material.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens12070887/s1, Table S1: Patients’ characteristics.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G. and I.M.; Data curation, G.S., I.M., O.K., V.K., A.I., V.B. and L.S.; Formal analysis, A.P., S.S. (Sergey Smerdin), S.M., V.V. and L.S.; Investigation, D.G., S.M. and L.S.; Methodology, D.G. and V.K.; Project administration, D.G. and I.E.; Resources, O.K., V.V. and L.S.; Software, S.S. (Sergey Smerdin); Supervision, D.G., I.E., V.K. and S.S. (Sergey Saenko); Validation, V.B. and O.F.; Visualization, A.P. and A.I.; Writing–original draft, L.S.; Writing–review & editing, D.G., G.S., S.S. (Sergey Smerdin), S.M., S.S. (Sergey Saenko), O.F. and L.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by Ethics Committee of I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) (protocol code 06-21 and date of approval 7 April 2021). The authors declare that this report does not contain any personal information that could lead to their identification. Clinical trial registration number: ISRCTN66445153.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Daley, C.L.; Iaccarino, J.M.; Lange, C.; Cambau, E.; Wallace, R.J.; Andrejak, C.; Böttger, E.C.; Brozek, J.; Griffith, D.E.; Guglielmetti, L.; et al. Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: An Official ATS/ERS/ESCMID/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline. Eur. Respir. J. 2020, 56, 2000535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Griffith, D.E.; Aksamit, T.; Brown-Elliott, B.A.; Catanzaro, A.; Daley, C.; Gordin, F.; Holland, S.M.; Horsburgh, R.; Huitt, G.; Iademarco, M.F.; et al. An Official ATS/IDSA Statement: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Diseases. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 175, 367–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Haworth, C.S.; Banks, J.; Capstick, T.; Fisher, A.J.; Gorsuch, T.; Laurenson, I.F.; Leitch, A.; Loebinger, M.R.; Milburn, H.J.; Nightingale, M.; et al. British Thoracic Society Guidelines for the Management of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease (NTM-PD). Thorax 2017, 72, ii1–ii64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Anisimova, A.; Pavlova, M.; Pavlova, L.; Sapozhnikova, N.; Chernokhaeva, I.; Gavrilov, P.; Sokolovich, E. Mycobacteriosis of the Lungs: Difficulties of Diagnosis and Treatment (Literature Review). MedAlliance 2020, 8, 25–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Petrov, I.; Amirova, T.; Petrova, L.; Petrova, F.; Sevastyanova, E.; Valiev, R. Microbiological and Epidemiological Features of Mycobacteriosis. Epidemiol. Vaccinal Prev. 2020, 19, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Haworth, C.S.; Floto, R.A. Introducing the New BTS Guideline: Management of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease (NTM-PD). Thorax 2017, 72, 969–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mezhebovskiy, V.R.; Shmakova, E.V.; Mezhebovskiy, A.V.; Pashkova, N.A.; Trebesova, A.A. Detection of Nontuberculosis Mycobacteria among Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis Living in Territories with Different Environmental Burden. Mod. Probl. Sci. Educ. 2021, 3, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Karpina, N.L.; Asanov, R.B.; Shishkina, E.R.; Larionova, E.E.; Shabalina, I.Y.; Ergeshov, A.E. Clinical and Microbiological Issues of the Diagnosis of Nontuberculous Mycobacterioses in Patients with Pulmonary Cavities. CTRI Bull. 2020, 1, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Korzh, E.V.; Podchos, N.A.; Zavgorodniy, A.F.; Klepak, N.V.; Yann, E.V. Pulmonary Mycobacteriosis in Tuberculous Patients. Univ. Clin. 2019, 4, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stepanyan, I.E.; Bagdasaryan, T.R.; Larionova, E.E.; Smirnova, T.G.; Andreevskaya, S.N.; Zaytseva, A.S.; Chernousova, L.N.; Ergeshov, A.E. Pulmonary Tuberculosis Co-Infection with Pulmonary Mycobacteriosis in One Patient: The Peculiarities of Diagnosis and Treatment. CTRI Bull. 2019, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Egorova, A.D.; Kiseleva, E.A.; Borisova, A.Y. Non-Tuberculous Pulmonary Mycobacteriosis Caused by M. Avium Complex—Clinical Manifestations and CT Patterns. CTRI Bull. 2021, S1, 102–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Makarova, M.V.; Guntupova, L.D. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria. BIOpreparations Prev. Diagn. Treat. 2020, 20, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Litvinov, V.I.; Guntupova, L.D.; Makarova, M.V.; Khachaturyantz, E.N. Mycobacteriosis of the Respiratory System. Tuberc. Soc. Signif. Dis. 2019, 7, 32–47. [Google Scholar]
  14. Borisova, O.V.; Mordyk, A.V. Epidemiology, Clinical Manifestations, Diagnosis and Treatment of Mycobacteriosis (Literature Review). MedAllliance 2019, 2, 35–45. [Google Scholar]
  15. Vladimirova, E.B.; Shmelev, E.I.; Zaytseva, A.S.; Kovalevskaya, M.N.; Kasimtseva, S.A.; Amansakhedov, R.B.; Chernousova, L.N.; Ergeshov, A.E.; Shmeleva, N.M. Non—Tuberculous Mycobacteriosis of the Lungs—Diagnostic Possibilities in the Practice of the Pulmonologist. Ter. Arkh 2019, 91, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zaitseva, A.S. Non-Tuberculous Pulmonary Mycobacteriosis: Clinical Guidelines of the British Thoracal Society. CTRI Bull. 2018, 4, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Makarova, M.V.; Khachatourians, E.N.; Krasnova, M.A.; Galkina, K.Y.; Guntupova, L.D.; Chizhova, A.O.; Litvinov, V.I. The Study of Drug Susceptibility of the Slow-Growing Mycobacterium M. Xenopi. Tuberc. Soc. Signif. Dis. 2018, 6, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lyamin, A.V.; Ismatullin, D.D.; Zhestkov, A.V.; Kondratenko, O.V. The Laboratory Diagnostic of Mycobacteriosis in Patients with Mucoviscidosis: A Review. Klin. Lab. Diagn. 2018, 63, 315–320. [Google Scholar]
  19. Krasnova, M.A.; Sinitzin, M.V.; Vaneeva, T.V.; Khakhalina, A.A.; Sobkin, A.L.; Safonova, S.G. The Results of Complex Laboratory Diagnostics of Tuberculosis in Co-Infected HIV/TB Patients Belonging to Different Groups of Notified Cases in Moscow. Tuberc. Soc. Signif. Dis. 2018, 1, 32–41. [Google Scholar]
  20. Larionova, E.E.; Andrievskaya, I.Y.; Andreevskaya, S.N.; Smirnova, T.G.; Chernousova, L.N. Microbiological Diagnosis of Coincident Mycobacterial Infection in Cystic Fibrosis. Ural. Med. J. 2018, 8, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sevastyanova, E.V.; Larionova, E.E.; Smirnova, T.G.; Andrievskaya, I.Y.; Andreevskaya, S.N.; Chernousova, L.N. Evaluation of the Results of Mycobacterium Detection, Obtained by Different Studies Methods. MedAllliance 2018, 6, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  22. Smirnova, T.G.; Andreevskaya, S.N.; Larionova, E.E.; Andreevskaya, I.Y.U.; Ustinova, V.V.; Chernousova, L.N. Monitoring of Species Diversity of Non-Tuberculosis Mycobacteria in the Some Russian Regions Using Dna-Strips of Genotype Mycobacterium CM/AS (Hain Lifescience, Germany). Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2017, 95, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Lyamin, A.V.; Kovalyov, A.M.; Zhestkov, A.V.; Kondratenko, O.V.; Ismatullin, D.D. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria: Modern Possibilities of Species Identification. Clin. Microbiol. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2017, 19, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eliseev, P.I.; Maryandyshev, A.O.; Tarasova, I.V.; Kheldal, A.; Khinderaker, S.G. Diagnostics and Treatment of Pulmonary Mycobacteriosis in the Patients with Suspected Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2018, 96, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Litvinov, V.I. Nontuberculous Mycobacteria, Mycobacteriosis. CTRI Bull. 2018, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giller, D.B.; Shcherbakova, G.V.; Gerasimov, A.N.; Smerdin, S.V.; Martel, I.I.; Kesaev, O.S.; Koroev, V.V.; Severova, L.P. Surgical Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 120, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Freixinet, J. Surgical Indications for Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. World J. Surg. 1997, 21, 475–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Pekhtusov, V.A.; Tatarintsev, A.V.; Giller, D.B.; Bizhanov, A.B.; Enilenis, I.I. Influence of Surgical Sanation of Patients with Destructive Tuberculosis on the Prevalence of Tuberculosis and Mortality. Khirurgiia 2020, 2, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bai, L.; Hong, Z.; Gong, C.; Yan, D.; Liang, Z. Surgical Treatment Efficacy in 172 Cases of Tuberculosis-Destroyed Lungs. Eur. J. Cardio-Thorac. Surg. 2012, 41, 335–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Global Tuberculosis Report; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 9789240013131.
  31. Kas, J.; Csekeő, A.; Fehér, C.; Karskó, L.; Kecskés, L.; Molnár, M.; Vágvölgyi, A.; Varga, J.T.; Bede, A.; Rozgonyi, Z.; et al. A Komplettáló Pneumonectomia Javallatai És Perioperatív Eredményei [Indications and Perioperative Results of Completion Pneumonectomy]. Magy. Seb. 2019, 72, 149–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Russian Government Regulation №109 of March 21, 2003 «On Improving Anti-TB Activities in the Russian Federation». Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901868614 (accessed on 15 August 2022).
  33. Russian Federation Ministry of Health Regulation №951 of December 29, 2014 “On the Approval of Guidelines for Improving the Diagnosis and Treatment of Respiratory Tuberculosis”. Available online: https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70749840/ (accessed on 15 August 2022).
  34. Dos Anjos, L.R.B.; Parreira, P.L.; Torres, P.P.T.S.; Kipnis, A.; Junqueira-Kipnis, A.P.; Rabahi, M.F. Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease: A Brief Review Focusing on Radiological Findings. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2020, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kang, H.-R.; Hwang, E.J.; Kim, S.A.; Choi, S.M.; Lee, J.; Lee, C.-H.; Yim, J.-J.; Kwak, N. Clinical Implications of Size of Cavities in Patients With Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: A Single-Center Cohort Study. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2021, 8, ofab087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, T.S.; Koh, W.J.; Han, J.; Chung, M.J.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, K.S.; Kwon, O.J. Hypothesis on the Evolution of Cavitary Lesions in Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Infection: Thin-Section CT and Histopathologic Correlation. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2005, 184, 1247–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Daley, C.L.; Griffith, D.E. Pulmonary Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Infections. Int. J. Tuberc. Lung Dis. 2010, 14, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  38. Ryu, Y.J.; Koh, W.-J.; Daley, C.L. Diagnosis and Treatment of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease: Clinicians’ Perspectives. Tuberc. Respir. Dis. 2016, 79, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Cowman, S.; Van Ingen, J.; Griffith, D.E.; Loebinger, M.R. Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease. Eur. Respir. J. 2019, 54, 1900250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Griffith, D.E.; Brown-Elliott, B.A.; van Ingen, J.; Chan, E.D.; Henkle, E.; Winthrop., K.L.; Lande, L. Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Disease, 1st ed.; Griffith, D.E., Ed.; Respiratory Medicine; Humana Press: Cham, Germany, 2019; ISBN 978-3-319-93472-3. [Google Scholar]
  41. Munjal, S.K.; Natarajan, S.; Vinay, V.; Meenakshisundaram, A. Clinical Profile of Patients Hospitalized with Hemoptysis. J. Family Med. Prim. Care 2022, 11, 7267–7271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Quigley, N.; Gagnon, S.; Fortin, M. Aetiology, Diagnosis and Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Haemoptysis in a North American Academic Centre. ERJ Open. Res. 2020, 6, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bhalla, A.; Pannu, A.K.; Suri, V. Etiology and Outcome of Moderate-to-Massive Hemoptysis: Experience from a Tertiary Care Center of North India. Int. J. Mycobacteriology 2017, 6, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ashraf, O. Hemoptysis, a Developing World Perspective. BMC Pulm. Med. 2006, 6, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Shao, H.X.; Wu, J.P.; Wu, Q.; Sun, X.; Li, L.; Xing, Z.H.; Sun, H.F. Bronchial Artery Embolization for Hemoptysis: A Retrospective Observational Study of 344 Patients. Chin. Med. J. 2015, 128, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lee, S.H.; Lee, J.H.; Chang, J.H.; Kim, S.J.; Yoon, H.Y.; Shim, S.S.; Kim, M.U.; Choi, S.Y.; Ryu, Y.J. Hemoptysis Requiring Bronchial Artery Embolization in Patients with Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease. BMC Pulm. Med. 2019, 19, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ogata, H.; Moriwaki, A.; Nakagawa, T.; Sakoda, S.; Ishimatsu, A.; Taguchi, K.; Aso, H.; Nogami, H.; Kadowaki, M.; Tateshi, Y.; et al. Association of Serum Antibodies against the Mycobacterium Avium Complex and Hemoptysis: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Klann, E.; Beal, S.G.; Tremblay, E.E. Evaluating Differences in Tuberculosis and Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease in Florida. Am. J. Infect. Control 2019, 47, 1324–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nguyen, I.; Green, O.N.; Modahl, L. Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease: A Clinical and Radiologic Update. Semin. Roentgenol. 2022, 57, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kwak, N.; Lee, C.H.; Lee, H.-J.J.; Kang, Y.A.; Lee, J.H.; Han, S.K.; Yim, J.-J.J. Non-Tuberculous Mycobacterial Lung Disease: Diagnosis Based on Computed Tomography of the Chest. Eur. Radiol. 2016, 26, 4449–4456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koh, W.J.; Kyung, S.L.; Jung Kwon, O.J.K.; Yeon, J.J.; Kwak, S.H.; Tae, S.K. Bilateral Bronchiectasis and Bronchiolitis at Thin-Section CT: Diagnostic Implications in Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Infection. Radiology 2005, 235, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Karamat, A.; Ambreen, A.; Ishtiaq, A.; Tahseen, S.; Rahman, M.A.; Mustafa, T. Isolation of Non-Tuberculous Mycobacteria among Tuberculosis Patients, a Study from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan. BMC Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Chung, M.J.; Lee, K.S.; Koh, W.-J.; Lee, J.H.; Kim, T.S.; Kwon, O.J.; Kim, S. Thin-Section CT Findings of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Diseases: Comparison between Mycobacterium Avium-Intracellulare Complex and Mycobacterium Abscessus Infection. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2005, 20, 777–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Chung, M.J.; Lee, K.S.; Koh, W.J.; Kim, T.S.; Kang, E.Y.; Kim, S.S.M.; Kwon, O.J.; Kim, S.S.M. Drug-Sensitive Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis, and Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease in NonAIDS Adults: Comparisons of Thin-Section CT Findings. Eur. Radiol. 2006, 16, 1934–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Evans, A.J.; Crisp, A.J.; Hubbard, R.B.; Colville, A.; Evans, S.A.; Johnston, I.D.A. Pulmonary Mycobacterium Kansasii Infection: Comparison of Radiological Appearances with Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Thorax 1996, 51, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Christensen, E.E.; Dietz, G.W.; Ahn, C.H.; Chapman, J.S.; Murry, R.C.; Hurst, G.A. Radiographic Manifestations of Pulmonary Mycobacterium Kansasii Infections. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1978, 131, 985–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kim, C.; Park, S.H.; Oh, S.Y.; Kim, S.S.; Jo, K.W.; Shim, T.S.; Kim, M.Y. Comparison of Chest CT Findings in Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Diseases vs. Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Lung Disease in HIV-Negative Patients with Cavities. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0174240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Pathogens 12 00887 g001 550
Figure 1. Study Design.
Figure 1. Study Design.
Pathogens 12 00887 g001
Pathogens 12 00887 g002 550
Figure 2. MBT in sputum before surgery.
Figure 2. MBT in sputum before surgery.
Pathogens 12 00887 g002
Pathogens 12 00887 g003 550
Figure 3. NTM in sputum before surgery.
Figure 3. NTM in sputum before surgery.
Pathogens 12 00887 g003
Table
Table 1. Distribution of patients by gender.
Table 1. Distribution of patients by gender.
GenderGroup 1Group 2Group 3p
female10 (50.0%)14 (60.9%)13 (32.5%)0.079
male10 (50.0%)9 (39.1%)27 (67.5%)
Table
Table 2. Analysis of age at first admission in compared groups.
Table 2. Analysis of age at first admission in compared groups.
Age at Admission (Years)p
M ± SD95% CIn
Group 134 ± 1428–40200.361
Group 236 ± 1131–4023
Group 331 ± 1128–3540
Table
Table 3. Average disease duration before surgery.
Table 3. Average disease duration before surgery.
Average Disease Duration before Surgery (Months)p
MeQ₁–Q₃n
Group 163–1120<0.001 *
pgroup3-group1 < 0.001
pgroup3-group2 < 0.001
Group 2128–1823
Group 33613–7840
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 4. Max cavitary lesion size.
Table 4. Max cavitary lesion size.
Group 1Group 2Group 3p
Max cavitary lesions sizeno cavities6 (30.0%)00<0.001 *
pGroup1-Group3 = 0.003
<2 cm01 (4.3%)1 (2.5%)
2–4 cm13 (65.0%)17 (73.9%)25 (62.5%)
4.1–6 cm1 (5.0%)2 (8.7%)3 (7.5%)
>6 cm03 (13.0%)11 (27.5%)
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 5. Frequency of unilateral and bilateral pulmonary destruction.
Table 5. Frequency of unilateral and bilateral pulmonary destruction.
Lung DestructionsPatients with Unilateral CavitiesPatients with Bilateral CavitiesAll Patients with
Cavities
Group 1Group 2Group 3Group 1Group 2Group 3
single cavitary lesions8 (57.1%)14 (60.8%)10 (25%)00032 (38.6%)
multiply cavitary lesions4 (28.6%)8 (34.7%)15 (37.5%)2 (14.3%)1 (4.4%)15 (37.5%)45 (54.2%)
all patients with cavitary lesions12 (85.7%)22 (95.6%)25 (62.5%)2 (14.3%)1 (4.4%)15 (37.5%)77 (92.8%)
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 6. Main radiographic signs at admission.
Table 6. Main radiographic signs at admission.
Group 1Group 2Group 3p
The main radiographic sign upon admissionlung focal lesions less than 1 cm in diameter without destructions2 (10.0%)00<0.001 *
pGroup1-Group3 < 0.001
lung focal lesions more than 1 cm in diameter without destruction2 (10.0%)00
lung focal lesions more than 1 cm with destructions5 (25.0%)3 (13.0%)0
thick-walled cavitary lesions1 (5.0%)5 (21.7%)0
thin-walled cavitary lesions8 (40.0%)15 (65.2%)40 (100.0%)
bronchiectasis2 (10.0%)00
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 7. All radiographic signs at admission.
Table 7. All radiographic signs at admission.
Size and Localization of Affected Lung PartsNumber of Casesp
Group 1Group 2Group 3
unilateral pathological changes13 (65.0%)17 (73.9%)15 (37.5%)0.011 *
pgroup2-group3 = 0.016
bilateral pathological changes7 (35.0%)6 (26.1%)25 (62.5%)
localized pathological changes (3 or less lung segments)10 (50.0%)4 (17.4%)1 (2.5%)0.005 *
pgroup1-group3 = 0.002
wide pathological changes (more than 3 lung segments)10 (50.0%)19 (82.6%)39 (97.5%)
damage to s1, s27 (35.0%)13 (56.5%)33 (82.5%)
damage to s64 (20.0%)3 (13.0%)7 (17.5%)
damage to 3s1 (5.0%)3 (13.0%)0
damage to s4, s56 (30.0%)2 (8.7%)0
damage to s7–s102 (10.0%)2 (8.7%)0
ground-glass opacity1 (5.0%)1 (4.3%)0
diffuse shadowing (infiltrations)4 (20.0%)3 (13.0%)11 (27.5%)
round shadow less than 1 cm in diameter (nodules)10 (50.0%)15 (65.2%)40 (100.0%)0.001 *
pgroup1-group2 = 0.049
pgroup1-group3 = 0.010
round shadow in the lung more than 1 cm without destruction (tuberculoma)2 (10.0%)000.040 *
shadow in the lung more than 1 cm with destruction (tuberculoma)5 (25.0%)3 (13.0%)00.007 *
pgroup1-group3 = 0.003
pgroup2-group3 = 0.039
thin-walled cavitary lesions1 (5.0%)5 (21.7%)00.005 *
pgroup2-group3 = 0.006
thick-walled cavitary lesions (fibrotic cavities)8 (40.0%)15 (65.2%)40 (100.0%)<0.001 *
pgroup1-group3 < 0.001
pgroup2-group3 < 0.001
periscissuritis (regional infiltration) **1 (5.0%)4 (17.4%)8 (20.0%)
volume reduction of the lung lobe or the lung4 (20.0%)13 (56.5%)40 (100.0%)
multifocal bronchiectasis4 (20.0%)10 (43.5%)1 (2.5%)
thickening of the bronchial wall4 (20.0%)8 (34.8%)9 (22.5%)
enlarged intrathoracic lung lymph nodes5 (25.0%)8 (34.8%)16 (40.0%)
cirrhotic changes (pneumofibrosis)2 (10.0%)9 (39.1%)40 (100.0%)
thickening of the pleural sheets, pleural exudate04 (17.4%)4 (10.0%)0.069
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05); ** Periscissuritis of the triangle form is cloudy infiltration, located at the interlobe fissure. The tip of a triangle is inverted to lung root, base to peripheral. The top border is undefined and cloudy passing without sharp outlines in unchanged lung tissue. The bottom border corresponds to inter-lobe pleura and is consequently precise. On the tomogram, the background has inflammatory infiltrations which differentiate the shadows of more or less dense foci, cavities of disintegration, and rod and scar formations of condensed parenchyma.
Table
Table 8. Characteristics and incidence of pulmonary process concomitant illnesses.
Table 8. Characteristics and incidence of pulmonary process concomitant illnesses.
Complications TypeNumber of Complications
Group 1, n = 20Group 2, n = 23Group 3, n = 40
respiratory failure10 (50.0%)21 (91.3%)32 (80.0%)
hemoptysis, pulmonary haemorrhage (0.027 * pgroup1-group3 = 0.019)5 (25.0%)4 (17.4%)1 (2.5%)
spontaneous pneumothorax1 (5.0%)00
empyema0 (0.0)3 (13.0%)4 (10.0%)
bronchostenosis03 (13.0%)5 (12.5%)
specific damage to the larynx, trachea, or bronchi (p = 0.069)05 (21.7%)9 (22.5%)
aspergillosis1 (5.0%)00
total patients with complications10 (50.0%)21 (91.3%)35 (87.5%)
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 9. Analysis of complaints depending on final diagnosis.
Table 9. Analysis of complaints depending on final diagnosis.
ComplaintNumber of Complaints
Group 1Group 2Group 3p
weakness11 (55.0%)13 (56.5%)39 (97.5%)<0.001 *
pgroup1-group3 = 0.001
pgroup2-group3 < 0.001
cough8 (40.0%)13 (56.5%)28 (70.0%)0.080
dyspnea4 (20.0%)6 (26.1%)26 (65.0%)<0.001 *
pgroup1-group3 = 0.003
pgroup2-group3 = 0.006
subfebrile condition6 (30.0%)7 (30.4%)11 (27.5%)0.963
hemoptysis, pulmonary haemorrhage5 (25.0%)4 (17.4%)1 (2.5%)0.027 *
pgroup1-group3 = 0.019
chest pain1 (5.0%)3 (13.0%)4 (10.0%)0.668
acute onset1 (5.0%)1 (4.3%)6 (15.0%)0.279
loss of appetite5 (25.0%)9 (39.1%)18 (45.0%)0.324
total patients with complaints14 (70.0%)22 (95,7%)40 (100%)
*—differences in indicators are statistically significant (p < 0.05)
Table
Table 10. Types of operations.
Table 10. Types of operations.
Surgery TypeGroup 1Group 2Group 3Total/of Which Minimally Invasive Access
TotalVATS *TotalVATS *TotalVATS *
wedge resection14 (50.0%)148 (19.5%)84 (4.6%)426/26
segmentectomy5 (17.9%)30011 (12.6%)1116/14
lobectomy with segmentectomy2 (7.1%)05 (12.2%)47 (8.0%)514/9
lobectomy006 (14.6%)310 (11.5%)616/9
bilobectomy002 (4.9%)21 (1.1%)03/2
pneumonectomy1 (3.6%)03 (7.3%)08 (9.2%)012/0
transsternal occlusion of the main bronchus00005 (5.7%)05/0
thoracocentesis3 (10.7%) 2 (4.9%) 4 (4.6%) 9/9
pleurectomy with wedge resection001 (2.4%)1001/1
thoracoplasty3 (10.7%)313 (31.7%)1131 (35.6%)2647/40
rethoracoplasty00002 (2.3%)22/2
endobronchial valve0 0 1 (1.1%) 1/1
others001 (2.4%) 3 (3.4%) 4/4
total number of operations:28 (100.0%)20 (71.4%)41 (100.0%)29 (70.7%)87 (100.0%)54 (62.1%)156 (100%)/
117(75.0%)
* VATS–Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Giller, D.; Scherbakova, G.; Enilenis, I.; Martel, I.; Kesaev, O.; Koroev, V.; Popova, A.; Ilyukhin, A.; Basangova, V.; Smerdin, S.; et al. A Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease, Destructive Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Pathogens 2023, 12, 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070887

AMA Style

Giller D, Scherbakova G, Enilenis I, Martel I, Kesaev O, Koroev V, Popova A, Ilyukhin A, Basangova V, Smerdin S, et al. A Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease, Destructive Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Pathogens. 2023; 12(7):887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070887

Chicago/Turabian Style

Giller, Dmitrii, Galina Scherbakova, Inga Enilenis, Ivan Martel, Oleg Kesaev, Vadim Koroev, Anna Popova, Alexandr Ilyukhin, Valeria Basangova, Sergey Smerdin, and et al. 2023. "A Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease, Destructive Drug-Resistant Pulmonary Tuberculosis and a Combination of Nontuberculous Mycobacterium Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis" Pathogens 12, no. 7: 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens12070887

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop