Skip to main content
Download PDF

Long-term prognostic outcomes in patients with haemoptysis

Respiratory Research volume 22, Article number: 219 (2021) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Haemoptysis is a challenging symptom that can be associated with potentially life-threatening medical conditions. Follow-up is key in these patients to promptly detect new or misdiagnosed pathologic findings. Few prospective studies have evaluated long-term prognostic outcomes in patients with haemoptysis. Furthermore, the role played by antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs on mortality and recurrence rates is unclear. The aim of this study was to assess mortality after 18 months of follow-up. Furthermore, the incidence of recurrence and the risk factors for recurrence and death were evaluated (including the role played by anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs).

Methods

Observational, prospective, multicentre, Italian study.

Results

451/606 (74.4%) recruited patients with haemoptysis completed the 18 months follow-up. 22/604 (3.6%) diagnoses changed from baseline to the end of the follow-up. 83/604 (13.7%) patients died. In 52/83 (62.7%) patients, death was the outcome of the disease which caused haemoptysis at baseline. Only the diagnosis of lung neoplasm was associated with death (OR (95%CI): 38.2 (4.2–347.5); p-value: 0.0001). 166 recurrences were recorded in 103/604 (17%) patients. The diagnosis of bronchiectasis was significantly associated with the occurrence of a recurrence (OR (95% CI): 2.6 (1.5–4.3)); p-value < 0.0001). Anticoagulant, antiaggregant, and anticoagulant plus antiaggregant drugs were not associated with an increased risk of death and recurrence.

Conclusions

Our study showed a low mortality rate in patients with haemoptysis followed-up for 18 months. Pulmonary malignancy was the main aetiology and the main predictor of death, whereas bronchiectasis was the most frequent diagnosis associated with recurrence. Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy did not change the risk of death or recurrence. Follow-up is recommended in patients initially diagnosed with lower airways infections and idiopathic bleeding.

Trial registration: NCT02045394

Background

Haemoptysis is a challenging symptom that can be associated with potentially life-threatening medical conditions [1, 2]. Recent studies have shown that lung cancer, bronchiectasis, and lower respiratory tract infections are the most frequent aetiologies [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. However, despite an accurate initial work-up, a subgroup of patients with haemoptysis does not have an aetiological diagnosis (i.e., idiopathic or cryptogenic haemoptysis) [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]; furthermore, diagnostic changes from the baseline assessment to recurrences have been recently described [2, 9]. In particular, lung cancers and bronchiectasis were subsequently diagnosed in patients with an initial diagnosis of idiopathic haemoptysis and lower respiratory tract infection [2, 10]. In this context, follow-up is key to detecting new or misdiagnosed pathologic findings (e.g., lung malignancy) [2, 6, 8].

Several factors might influence the long-term prognostic outcomes of patients with haemoptysis. Few prospective studies have evaluated the survival rate, the mortality-related risk factors, or the incidence of recurrence and its associated variables [7, 8]. Furthermore, the role played by antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs is still unclear.

The primary aim of this study was to assess the mortality after 18 months of follow-up; furthermore, the incidence of recurrence and the risk factors for recurrence and death were evaluated. The role of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs on these outcomes was also studied.

Materials and methods

Study design

This is a secondary analysis of an observational, prospective, multicentre, Italian study aimed at evaluating the epidemiology of haemoptysis in Italy and the diagnostic yield of the most frequently prescribed diagnostic techniques [5]. It was approved by the ethical committees of five Italian participating hospitals and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02045394). Written informed consent was provided by all recruited patients [5], who were followed-up for 18 months.

One month after the recruitment and the first initial assessment, a hospital clinical re-evaluation was scheduled. After three, six, nine, twelve, and eighteen months, a phone call was planned for every patient. At each follow-up visit, information on the occurrence, timing, and severity of recurrences was collected.

In case of a recurrence, a new clinical assessment was performed; data on clinical, radiological, and endoscopic examinations, as well as on symptom management were recorded.

Patients and interventions

From July 2013 to September 2015, adult (i.e., ≥ 18 years old) patients with haemoptysis requiring an aetiological diagnosis were considered eligible for recruitment [5] and consecutively enrolled. Exclusion criteria were the following: 1) aetiology of haemoptysis already known; 2) refusal to sign the informed consent. The follow-up period lasted from December 2015 to February 2018.

The severity of haemoptysis was graded by the first attending physician. Patients were divided into three groups based on the total amount of blood expectorated in 24 h (h) [5, 7]: mild (i.e., drops of blood to 20 millilitres (ml)/24 h), moderate (i.e., 20–500 ml/24 h), severe (i.e., > 500 ml/24 h).

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was the survival rate of patients with haemoptysis. Furthermore, the incidence of recurrence was calculated, and the main factors associated with recurrence and mortality were determined. The effectiveness of antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs on these outcomes was specifically investigated. Changes in the diagnosis of haemoptysis from baseline to the end of follow-up were recorded.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative and quantitative variables were collected with an ad hoc electronic form. Qualitative variables were described with absolute and relative (percentage) frequencies, whereas quantitative variables were summarised as medians (interquartile ranges, IQR) for their non-parametric distribution. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the relationships between clinical, demographic, and epidemiological variables and the outcomes death and recurrence. A two-tailed p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All the statistical computations were performed with the statistical software STATA version 16 (StatsCorp, Texas, USA).

Results

An 18 month follow-up assessment was completed by 451 out of 606 (74.4%) patients who were recruited [5].

The initial aetiological diagnoses were previously described [5]. In addition to specific aetiological therapy, bronchial artery embolisation was performed in 13/606 (2.1%) patients, and bronchoscopy was performed with a therapeutic aim (e.g., administration of topical vasoconstriction, Fogarty balloon, endobronchial argon plasma coagulation, and laser therapy) in 99/604 (16.4%) patients. Oral and intravenous tranexamic acid were prescribed in 119/606 (19.6%) patients.

70/606 (11.5%) patients were lost to follow-up, whereas 83/606 (13.7%) died during the study period. Within one month after the enrolment 15/83 (18.1%) patients died. 21/83 (25.3%) patients died between the first and the third month of follow-up, 14/83 (16.9%) between the third and the sixth month, 26/83 (31.3%) between the sixth and the twelfth month, and 7/83 (8.4%) between the twelfth and the eighteenth month.

Death was the outcome of the disease which caused haemoptysis at baseline in 52/83 (62.7%) patients: 42 died due to lung cancer (eight during a recurrence), seven patients for metastatic pulmonary malignancy, two patients for pneumonia, and one for a bronchiectasis exacerbation. One patient, initially diagnosed with idiopathic haemoptysis, died during a recurrence without an identifiable cause of bleeding.

In the univariate analysis, age > 70 years (odds ratio, OR: 9.5; p-value: 0.03), being male r (OR: 2.3; p-value: 0.005), moderate haemoptysis (OR: 1.9; p-value: 0.01), smoking history (≥ 10 pack/years: OR: 3.5; p-value: < 0.0001; ≥ 30 pack/years: OR 1.9; p-values: 0.02), and pulmonary malignancy (OR: 15.6; p-value: < 0.0001) were associated with an increased risk of mortality. In the multivariate analysis, only the diagnosis of lung neoplasm resulted significantly associated with the above-mentioned outcome (OR: 38.2; p-value: 0.0001) (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic and clinical variables predictive of mortality in patients with haemoptysis
Full size table

From baseline to the end of the follow-up, 22/606 (3.6%) diagnoses changed (Table 2). In particular, pulmonary malignancy was described in four cases initially diagnosed with idiopathic bleeding, in two patients with an exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (both with a smoking history > 20 pack/years), and in four patients with pneumonia/lung abscess (two of them active smokers). In 7/22 (32%) patients, the new diagnosis was determined during a recurrence: lung cancer was described in two patients with an initial diagnosis of pneumonia/lung abscess and in one with idiopathic bleeding. In two patients, an upper airways lesion was found after an initial diagnosis of acute bronchitis and idiopathic bleeding. An upper digestive haemorrhage and a pulmonary embolism were diagnosed in two patients initially diagnosed with cryptogenic haemoptysis and pneumonia, respectively.

Table 2 Variation in the diagnosis from the initial assessment after 18 months of follow-up
Full size table

Recurrent episodes of haemoptysis were recorded in 103/606 (17%) patients (Table 3). The median (IQR) number of events was 1 (1–2). Among 103 patients with bronchiectasis, 28 (27.2%) experienced recurrences (45 bleeding events). Recurrences were also recorded in 24/103 (23.3%) with pulmonary malignancy (22/103 (21.4%) with lung cancer (26 events) and 2/103 (1.9%) with pulmonary metastasis (4 events), in 13/103 (12.6%) with pneumonia/lung abscess (21 events). Bronchiectasis and pneumonia/lung abscess related recurrences were mostly mild (20 (71.4%) and 13 (100%) patients, respectively), whereas in case of lung cancer mild to moderate bleeding was found in 10 (45.5%) patients. Two (7.1%) severe recurrences were recorded in patients with both bronchiectasis and lung cancer.

Table 3 Haemoptysis recurrences and their severity in 103 patients related to the final diagnosis
Full size table

The univariate analysis showed that bronchiectasis was significantly associated with the occurrence of a recurrence (OR: 2.6); p-value < 0.0001) (Table 4). Anticoagulant, antiaggregant, and anticoagulant plus antiaggregant drugs were not significantly associated with an increased risk of mortality or recurrence (Table 5).

Table 4 Demographic and clinical variables predictive of recurrence in patients with haemoptysis
Full size table
Table 5 Role played by antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, alone and combined, on recurrence and mortality in patients with haemoptysis
Full size table

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest prospective study describing the long-term prognostic outcomes (18 months) of patients with haemoptysis.

An overall mortality rate of 13.7% was found; the number of deaths increased from 18.1 to 31% after one year of follow-up and then decreased to 8.4% at the end of the study period. Most of the deaths occurring during follow-up were related to the aetiology that caused the haemoptysis, with pulmonary neoplasms being the leading cause.

Malignancy, which was reported as the most frequent aetiology in patients with haemoptysis in several studies [3,4,5,6, 8, 11], represents the only significant predictor of mortality in our study. Haemoptysis related to bronchiectasis, lower respiratory tract infections, and other less frequent aetiologies was not associated with an increase in mortality.

Two previous prospective studies with a small sample size and a follow-up period of 1.8–2.7 years described a slightly higher mortality rate (19.5–22%) [7, 8], mainly driven by malignancies [8]. More heterogeneous findings were reported by recently published European retrospective studies where lung cancer was the major cause of death, but the mortality rate ranged from 5.9 to 27% [2, 6, 10]. Petersen et al. showed that older age, previous diagnosis of lung cancer, current/previous smoking history, and concomitant lung diseases are independent risk factors of death [10]. Notably, cryptogenic haemoptysis accounted for 80.5% of the diagnoses in this cohort, suggesting a suboptimal or difficult-to-perform diagnostic assessment [10].

The recurrence rate was 17%, with bronchiectasis being the leading cause (27.2%), and the most important predictor of recurrence. Bronchiectasis recurrences were mainly mild in contrast with those caused by lung malignancies (i.e., the second most frequent cause of recurrence), which were equally mild and moderate.

Few recent retrospective data on this topic are available in the scientific literature. In keeping with our findings, Fidan et al. and Ryuge et al. found bronchiectasis as the most frequent diagnosis in recurrent hemoptysis [12, 13]. Abdulmalak et al. described recurrence rates of 16.6% and 16.1% during a three-year follow-up period in 2008 and 2009, respectively [2]. Cryptogenic haemoptysis, lower respiratory tract infection, and lung cancer were the most common aetiologies of recurrences, with cryptogenic haemoptysis representing 50% of all causes.

Choi et al., who described a recurrence rate of 19.1%, demonstrated that aspergillosis, active bleeding, and blood clots during bronchoscopy during the first evaluation were significantly associated with the risk of recurrence; however, they analysed only patients with mild hemoptysis [14]. Similar findings were described by Lee et al., who found that active bleeding during bronchoscopy, smoking history > 40 years, and hypertension were the main predictors of recurrence. Notably, the aetiology was not evaluated in this study [15].

As suggested by Lee et al., recurrences should alert physicians to undetected pathological findings [16, 17].

In seven patients of our cohort, a recurrence was associated with a new clinical and radiological assessment and to an aetiological change. Three patients initially diagnosed with idiopathic bleeding or pneumonia were subsequently diagnosed with lung cancer, in contrast to the study by Tsoumakidou et al., where lung cancer was not diagnosed in any patients with an initial aetiology other than lung cancer [7]. On the contrary, Abdulmalak et al. described the highest rate of lung cancer detection during the follow-up of patients with a diagnosis of respiratory infection (10.4%) at the baseline evaluation [2].

In our study, four patients initially diagnosed with acute bronchitis and COPD exacerbation based on clinical and chest X-ray findings were subsequently diagnosed with bronchiectasis.

The present scientific evidence suggests the importance of a clinical and radiological follow-up in patients with bleeding of unknown origin and related to an acute lower respiratory tract infection, as well as a more accurate radiological assessment (i.e., chest CT) in patients with haemoptysis and risk factors for bronchiectasis [18].

Very little data could be retrieved on the impact of antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapies on long-term prognostic outcomes. In a large retrospective cohort study, Lee et al. failed to demonstrate a potential role of aspirin on recurrence [15]. Similar findings were shown by Ryuge et al., who studied the mechanism of haemoptysis relapse in patients who underwent BAE; they demonstrated that antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy did not increase recanalisation, i.e. the most frequent mechanism underlying re-hemoptysis [13]. We have prospectively demonstrated that these drugs, individually or in combination, did not change the risk of death and recurrence.

Some study limitations can be found. The observational nature cannot help discriminate the role played by some medical conditions for the background noise of confounders. However, for ethical reasons, it is currently the best methodological approach. Differences in some standard operating procedures in the recruited centres could affect some results in terms of diagnostic accuracy. However, the recruited hospitals were national reference centres, and thus, operational variability should be not relevant. Subgroup analyses by aetiology could have affected the statistical power of some findings; future studies focused on specific aetiologies could confirm our novel results.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our study shows a low mortality rate in patients with haemoptysis followed-up for a long period. Pulmonary malignancy is the main aetiology and the main predictor of death in these patients, whereas bronchiectasis is the most frequent diagnosis associated with recurrence. Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy do not change the risk of death or recurrence. Follow-up is recommended in patients initially diagnosed with lower airways infections and those with idiopathic bleeding, in order to detect new or misdiagnosed lung malignancies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ml:

Millilitres

IQR:

Interquartile range

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

References

  1. Mondoni M, Sferrazza Papa GF, Sotgiu G, Carlucci P, Pellegrino GM, Centanni S. Haemoptysis: a frequent diagnostic challenge. Eur Respir J. 2016;47(1):348–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Abdulmalak C, Cottenet J, Beltramo G, et al. Haemoptysis in adults: a 5-year study using the French nationwide hospital administrative database. Eur Respir J. 2015;46(2):503–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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(4):00204–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Vanni S, Bianchi S, Bigiarini S, et al. Management of patients presenting with haemoptysis to a Tertiary Care Italian Emergency Department: the Florence Haemoptysis Score (FLHASc). Intern Emerg Med. 2018;13(3):397–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mondoni M, Carlucci P, Job S, et al. Observational, multicentre study on the epidemiology of haemoptysis. Eur Respir J. 2018;51(1):1701813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Soares Pires F, Teixeira N, Coelho F, Damas C. Hemoptysis–etiology, evaluation and treatment in a university hospital. Rev Port Pneumol. 2011;17(1):7–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tsoumakidou M, Chrysofakis G, Tsiligianni I, Maltezakis G, Siafakas NM, Tzanakis N. A prospective analysis of 184 hemoptysis cases: diagnostic impact of chest X-ray, computed tomography, bronchoscopy. Respiration. 2006;73(6):808–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Uzun O, Atasoy Y, Findik S, Atici AG, Erkan L. A prospective evaluation of hemoptysis cases in a tertiary referral hospital. Clin Respir J. 2010;4(3):131–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Arooj P, Bredin E, Henry MT, et al. Bronchoscopy in the investigation of outpatients with hemoptysis at a lung cancer clinic. Respir Med. 2018;139:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Petersen CL, Weinreich UM. Five-year follow-up of hemoptysis with no malignancy suspected on chest computed tomography: recurrence, lung cancer and mortality. Eur Clin Respir J. 2019;6(1):1616519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirshberg B, Biran I, Glazer M, Kramer MR. Hemoptysis: etiology, evaluation, and outcome in a tertiary referral hospital. Chest. 1997;112(2):440–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fidan A, Ozdoğan S, Oruç O, Salepçi B, Ocal Z, Cağlayan B. Hemoptysis: a retrospective analysis of 108 cases. Respir Med. 2002;96(9):677–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ryuge M, Hara M, Hiroe T, et al. Mechanisms of recurrent haemoptysis after super-selective bronchial artery coil embolisation: a single-centre retrospective observational study. Eur Radiol. 2018;29(2):70.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Choi J, Baik JH, Kim CH, et al. Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with mild hemoptysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(7):1160–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee MK, Kim SH, Yong SJ, et al. Moderate hemoptysis: recurrent hemoptysis and mortality according to bronchial artery embolization. Clin Respir J. 2015;9(1):53–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee YJ, Lee SM, Park JS, et al. The clinical implications of bronchoscopy in hemoptysis patients with no explainable lesions in computed tomography. Respir Med. 2012;106(3):413–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mondoni M, Carlucci P, Cipolla G, et al. Bronchoscopy to assess patients with hemoptysis: which is the optimal timing? BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19(1):36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Expert Panel on Thoracic Imaging, Olsen KM, Manouchehr-Pour S, Donnelly EF, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria hemoptysis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(5S):S148–S159.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Respiratory Unit, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, San Paolo Hospital, Department of Health Sciences, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via A. Di Rudinì n.8, 20142, Milan, Italy

    Michele Mondoni, Paolo Carlucci, Sabrina De Pascalis, Fausta Alfano & Stefano Centanni

  2. UOC Pneumologia, ASST Lodi, Lodi, Italy

    Giuseppe Cipolla

  3. UO Pneumologia ed Endoscopia Toracica, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy

    Matteo Pagani

  4. UOS Servizio Pneumologia, Ospedale di Codogno, ASST Lodi, Codogno (Lodi), Italy

    Francesco Tursi

  5. Lung Disease Unit, Dept of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

    Alessandro Fois, Pietro Pirina & Sara Canu

  6. Pulmonary Disease Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Azienda Ospedali Riuniti, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Public Health, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Stefano Gasparini & Martina Bonifazi

  7. UO Medicina Interna, AUSL Modena, Ospedale di Carpi, Carpi (Modena), Italy

    Silvia Marani

  8. UO Pneumologia, Ospedale P. Pederzoli, Peschiera del Garda (Verona), Italy

    Andrea Comel

  9. Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit, Dept of Medical, Surgical and Experimental Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy

    Laura Saderi & Giovanni Sotgiu

Authors
  1. Michele Mondoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paolo Carlucci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giuseppe Cipolla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matteo Pagani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Tursi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessandro Fois
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pietro Pirina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sara Canu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stefano Gasparini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Martina Bonifazi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Silvia Marani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Andrea Comel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Laura Saderi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Sabrina De Pascalis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Fausta Alfano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Stefano Centanni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Giovanni Sotgiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Guarantor: MM is the guarantor of the content of the manuscript, including the data and analysis. Author contribution: MM: contributions to the conception and design of the work, acquisition, and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. PC: contributions to the conception and design of the work, acquisition, and interpretation of data for the work; revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. LS: contributions to the analysis and interpretation of data for the work; revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. GS: contributions to the conception or design of the work, analysis and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved-GC, MP, FT, PP, AF, AA, SC, SG, MB, ACC, SM, FA, SDP, SC: acquisition of data for the work; revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content; final approval of the version to be published; agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michele Mondoni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Resolution n. 665 (18/07/2013), Comitato Etico Ospedale San Paolo, Milan, Italy.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mondoni, M., Carlucci, P., Cipolla, G. et al. Long-term prognostic outcomes in patients with haemoptysis. Respir Res 22, 219 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-021-01809-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-021-01809-6

Keywords

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us