-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomized clinical trial of endobronchial ultrasound needle biopsy with and without aspiration.
- Carlos A Jimenez, Rodolfo C Morice, David Ost, George A Eapen, Francisco A Almeida, Roberto F Casal, Mona Sarkiss, Gregg A Staerkel, Graciela M Nogueras-Gonzalez, and Mateen H Uzbeck.
- Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA. casal@bcm.edu
- Chest. 2012 Sep 1;142(3):568-73.
BackgroundEndobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is performed with a dedicated 22- or 21-gauge needle while suction is applied. Fine-needle sampling without suction (capillary sampling) has been studied for endoscopic ultrasound and for biopsies at various body sites and has resulted in similar diagnostic yield and fewer traumatic samples. However, the role of EBUS-guided transbronchial needle capillary sampling (EBUS-TBNCS) is still to be determined.MethodsAdults with suspicious hilar or mediastinal lymph nodes (LNs) were included in a single-blinded, prospective, randomized trial comparing EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-TBNCS. The primary end point was the concordance rate between the two techniques in terms of adequacy and diagnosis of cytologic samples. The secondary end point was the concordance rate between the two techniques in terms of quality of samples.ResultsA total of 115 patients and 192 LNs were studied. Concordance between EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-TBNCS was high, with no significant difference in adequacy (88% vs 88%, respectively [P ± .858]; concordance rate, 83.9% [95% CI, 77.9-88.8]); diagnosis (36% vs 34%, respectively [P ± .289]; concordance rate, 95.8% [95% CI, 92-92.8]); diagnosis of malignancy (28% vs 26%, respectively [P ± .125]; concordance rate, 97.9% [95% CI, 94.8-99.4]); or sample quality (concordance rate, 83.3% [95% CI, 73.3-88.3]). Concordance between EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-TBNCS was high irrespective of LN size (≤ 1 cm vs > 1 cm).ConclusionsRegardless of LN size, no differences in adequacy, diagnosis, or quality were found between samples obtained using EBUS-TBNA and those obtained using EBUS-TBNCS. There is no evidence of any benefit derived from the practice of applying suction to EBUS-guided biopsies.Trial RegistryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT00886847; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.