Eric L Scholten1, Roy Semaan2, Peter Illei3, Christopher Mallow2, Sixto Arias4, David Feller-Kopman2, Karen Oakjones-Burgess2, Bernice Frimpong2, Ricardo Ortiz2, Hans Lee2, Lonny Yarmus5. 1. Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, La Jolla, CA. 2. Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 3. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. 4. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL. 5. Section of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: lyarmus@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Endobronchial ultrasonographically guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) of thoracic structures is a commonly performed tissue sampling technique. The use of an inner-stylet in the EBUS needle has never been rigorously evaluated and may be unnecessary. METHODS: In a prospective randomized single-blind controlled clinical trial, patients with a clinical indication for EBUS-TBNA underwent lymph node sampling using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. Sample adequacy, diagnostic yield, and various cytologic quality measures were compared. RESULTS:One hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled, with 194 lymph nodes sampled, each using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. There was no significant difference in sample adequacy or diagnostic yield between techniques. The without-stylet technique resulted in adequate samples in 87% of the 194 study lymph nodes, which was no different from the with-stylet adequacy rate (82%; P = .371). The with-stylet technique resulted in a diagnosis in 50 of 194 samples (25.7%), which was similar to the without-stylet group (49 of 194 [25.2%]; P = .740). There was a high degree of concordance in the determination of adequacy (84.0%; 95% CI, 78.1-88.9) and diagnostic sample generation (95.4%; 95% CI, 91.2-97.9) between the two techniques. A similar qualitative number of lymphocytes, malignant cells, and bronchial respiratory epithelia were recovered using each technique. CONCLUSIONS: Omitting stylet use during EBUS-TBNA does not affect diagnostic outcomes and reduces procedural complexity. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov: No. NCT 02201654; URL:www.clinicaltrials.gov.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Endobronchial ultrasonographically guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) of thoracic structures is a commonly performed tissue sampling technique. The use of an inner-stylet in the EBUS needle has never been rigorously evaluated and may be unnecessary. METHODS: In a prospective randomized single-blind controlled clinical trial, patients with a clinical indication for EBUS-TBNA underwent lymph node sampling using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. Sample adequacy, diagnostic yield, and various cytologic quality measures were compared. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled, with 194 lymph nodes sampled, each using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. There was no significant difference in sample adequacy or diagnostic yield between techniques. The without-stylet technique resulted in adequate samples in 87% of the 194 study lymph nodes, which was no different from the with-stylet adequacy rate (82%; P = .371). The with-stylet technique resulted in a diagnosis in 50 of 194 samples (25.7%), which was similar to the without-stylet group (49 of 194 [25.2%]; P = .740). There was a high degree of concordance in the determination of adequacy (84.0%; 95% CI, 78.1-88.9) and diagnostic sample generation (95.4%; 95% CI, 91.2-97.9) between the two techniques. A similar qualitative number of lymphocytes, malignant cells, and bronchial respiratory epithelia were recovered using each technique. CONCLUSIONS: Omitting stylet use during EBUS-TBNA does not affect diagnostic outcomes and reduces procedural complexity. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov: No. NCT 02201654; URL:www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Authors: Roberto F Casal; Donald R Lazarus; Kristine Kuhl; Graciela Nogueras-González; Sarah Perusich; Linda K Green; David E Ost; Mona Sarkiss; Carlos A Jimenez; Georgie A Eapen; Rodolfo C Morice; Lorraine Cornwell; Sheila Austria; Amir Sharafkanneh; Rolando E Rumbaut; Horiana Grosu; Farrah Kheradmand Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sachin Wani; Dayna Early; Julie Kunkel; Ann Leathersich; Christine E Hovis; Thomas G Hollander; Cara Kohlmeier; Cynthia Zelenka; Riad Azar; Steven Edmundowicz; Brian Collins; Jingxia Liu; Matthew Hall; Daniel Mullady Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Lonny B Yarmus; Jason A Akulian; Christopher Gilbert; Stephen C Mathai; Srividya Sathiyamoorthy; Sarina Sahetya; Kassem Harris; Colin Gillespie; Andrew Haas; David Feller-Kopman; Daniel Sterman; Hans J Lee Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2013-04
Authors: Nikhil Jagan; Carolina A Landeen; Douglas R Moore; Adam D Highley; Ryan W Walters; Zachary S DePew Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: George Tsaknis; Muhammad Naeem; Sridhar Rathinam; Alison Caswell; Jayne Haycock; Jane McKenna; Raja V Reddy Journal: J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol Date: 2022-04-01