Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Is investigation of patients with haemoptysis and normal chest radiograph justified?
  1. M Thirumaran,
  2. R Sundar,
  3. I M Sutcliffe,
  4. D C Currie
  1. Dewsbury and District Hospital, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr D C Currie, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Dewsbury and District Hospital, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Halifax Road, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF13 4HS, UK; David.Currie{at}midyorks.nhs.uk

Abstract

Background: Haemoptysis is a common clinical symptom. A small proportion of patients present with haemoptysis and normal chest radiograph. The investigation strategy for this group of patients is unclear. The aim of this study is to see whether further investigations for this group of patients are justified.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of consecutive patients presenting with haemoptysis and normal chest radiograph over a period of 56 months irrespective of their smoking status. These patients were investigated by CT of the thorax and fibreoptic bronchoscopy.

Results: 275 episodes of haemoptysis with normal chest radiograph were investigated further in 270 patients (60% males). The median age was 60 years. Twenty-six patients were diagnosed to have respiratory tract malignancies (larynx, 1; trachea, 1; lung, 22; carcinoid, 1; and leiomyoma, 1). Eight (31%) of the 26 patients with respiratory tract malignancy had radical treatment. Fibreoptic bronchoscopy was diagnostic of cancer in 14 (54%) of the 26 patients with malignancy. CT of the thorax was suggestive of cancer in 24 (96%) of the 25 patients with malignancy.

Conclusion: It is concluded that further investigation of haemoptysis in smokers is justified regardless of the amount or frequency of haemoptysis based on a 9.6% rate of malignancy in this consecutive series. It is recommended that these patients are investigated with CT of the thorax followed by fibreoptic bronchoscopy.

View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and Peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • See Editorial, p 829

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles