• Daniel P Steinfort, Asha Bonney, Katharine See, and Louis B Irving.
• Dept of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia Dept of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia daniel.steinfort@mh.org.au.
• Eur. Respir. J. 2016 Feb 1; 47 (2): 607-14.

AbstractMultiple guidance modalities may be combined during bronchoscopic investigation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). The relative contribution of each modality to diagnostic performance remains uncertain.Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) with virtual bronchoscopy (VB) was routinely performed, with electromagnetic navigation (EMN) utilised only where EBUS was unable to locate PPLs or where the probe was adjacent to the lesion and on-site cytologic examination was nondiagnostic.236 consecutive patients with 245 PPLs had lesion size 22.8±12.4 mm (mean±sd). PPLs were localised using EBUS+VB alone in 188 (77%) and was diagnostic in 134 of these (71.3%). EBUS localisation was predicted by PPL size (23.7±10.5 versus 19.7±9.8 mm, p=0.003), but not by bronchus sign, PPL-hilum distance or PPL-pleura distance. EMN in 57 patients achieved EBUS localisation in a further 17 patients (30.9%), improving overall visualisation yield to 85%. Nine of these 57 procedures achieved a definitive diagnosis (16%), improving overall diagnostic yield to 58.4%. Probe position and lesion type influenced overall diagnostic yield. Sensitivity for diagnosis of lung cancer was 70% (131/188; 95% CI 63-76%).Localisation rate and diagnostic sensitivity of radial probe EBUS+VB alone for diagnosis of PPLs is high. EBUS localisation rates and procedural yield are improved only modestly (by 8% and 4%, respectively) with addition of EMN. Sampling following EMN should include all available methods to maximise diagnostic yield. Copyright ©ERS 2016.

29 keywords...

hide…