You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Outcomes in children with protracted bacterial bronchitis confirmed by bronchoscopy
  1. Mark G Pritchard1,
  2. Warren Lenney1,2,
  3. Francis J Gilchrist1,2
  1. 1Academic Department of Child Health, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
  2. 2Institute for Science and Technology in Medicine, Keele University, Guy Hilton Research Centre, Stoke-on-Trent, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Francis J Gilchrist, Academic Department of Child Health, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Newcastle Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 6QG, UK; francis.gilchrist{at}uhns.nhs.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307284

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Protracted bacterial bronchitis (PBB) is increasingly recognised as a cause of chronic cough in children.1 It is characterised by bacterial infection of the conducting airways that produces an antibiotic responsive wet cough.2 At our centre, children with suspected PBB are treated empirically with a 2-week course of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. If they do not respond or their symptoms relapse, then flexible bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (FB-BAL) is undertaken to obtain a microbiological diagnosis. In those whom PBB is confirmed, a prolonged course of an appropriate antibiotic is prescribed. There are relatively little data available on response to treatment, but it was our experience a high percentage of children were experiencing relapses of their wet cough after initial treatment. We therefore undertook a retrospective review …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors WL and FJG conceived this study. MGP collected the data. MGP and FJG analysed the data. MGP drafted the manuscript and WL and FJG critically revised it for intellectual content. All authors approved the final version.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.