• Masahide Oki, Hideo Saka, Masahiko Ando, Rie Tsuboi, Masashi Nakahata, Saori Oka, Yoshihito Kogure, and Chiyoe Kitagawa.
• Chest. 2015 May 1;147(5):1259-66.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the tolerance, efficacy, and safety of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) with transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with an endobronchial ultrasound scope for the first pathologic diagnosis of lesions accessible by both procedures.MethodsPatients who had lesions accessible by both EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA were enrolled and were randomized to undergo either procedure. Patients quantified tolerance, and operators charted the quality of examination using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).ResultsA specific diagnosis was made in 50 of 55 patients (91%) in the EBUS-TBNA group and in 48 of 55 patients (87%) in the EUS-FNA group (P = .76). Compared with EBUS-TBNA, EUS-FNA was associated with a shorter duration of procedure (median, 15.3 min vs 11.3 min; P < .001), lower doses of IV midazolam (mean, 4.4 mg vs 4 mg; P = .02) and intraairway lidocaine (mean, 303 mg vs 189 mg; P < .001), less frequent oxygen desaturations (23 of 55 vs two of 55, P < .001), and higher operator satisfaction (P < .001). There was no significant difference in patient tolerance according to the patients' VAS. Lymph node infection occurred in one patient in the EBUS-TBNA group and in two patients in the EUS-FNA group.ConclusionsBoth EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA provide high accuracy with good tolerance, although the occurrence of infectious complications should be monitored carefully. EUS-FNA has the advantage of comparable tolerance with fewer doses of anesthetics and sedatives, a shorter procedure time, and fewer oxygen desaturations during the procedure.Trial RegistryUMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000005757; URL: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/.

15 keywords...

hide…