Masahide Oki1, Hideo Saka1, Fumihiro Asano2, Chiyoe Kitagawa1, Yoshihito Kogure1, Akifumi Tsuzuku2, Masahiko Ando3. 1. Department of Respiratory Medicine, National Hospital Organization Nagoya Medical Center, Nagoya, Japan. 2. Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Gifu Prefectural General Medical Center, Gifu, Japan. 3. Center for Advanced Medicine and Clinical Research, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan. Electronic address: masahideo@aol.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: When evaluating peripheral pulmonary lesions, a 3.0-mm ultrathin bronchoscope (UTB) with a 1.7-mm working channel is advantageous regarding good access to the peripheral airway, whereas a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope provides a larger 2.0-mm working channel, which allows the use of various instruments including a guide sheath (GS), larger forceps, and an aspiration needle. This study compared multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB and a thin bronchoscope with multiple sampling methods for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions. METHODS:Patients with peripheral pulmonary lesions ≤ 30 mm in diameter were recruited and randomized to undergo endobronchial ultrasonography, virtual bronchoscopy, and fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy using a 3.0-mm UTB (UTB group) or a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope (thin bronchoscope group). In the thin bronchoscope group, the use of small forceps with a GS or standard forceps without the GS was permitted. In addition, needle aspiration was performed for lesions into which an ultrasound probe could not be inserted. RESULTS:A total of 360 patients were enrolled, and 356 were included in the analyses (median largest lesional diameter, 19 mm). The overall diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the UTB group than in the thin bronchoscope group (70.1% vs 58.7%, respectively; P = .027). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the UTB group (median, 24.8 vs 26.8 min, respectively; P = .008). The complication rates were 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .574). CONCLUSIONS:Multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB afforded a higher diagnostic yield than that using a thin bronchoscope in the diagnosis of small peripheral pulmonary lesions. TRIAL REGISTRY: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000010133; URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: When evaluating peripheral pulmonary lesions, a 3.0-mm ultrathin bronchoscope (UTB) with a 1.7-mm working channel is advantageous regarding good access to the peripheral airway, whereas a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope provides a larger 2.0-mm working channel, which allows the use of various instruments including a guide sheath (GS), larger forceps, and an aspiration needle. This study compared multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB and a thin bronchoscope with multiple sampling methods for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions. METHODS:Patients with peripheral pulmonary lesions ≤ 30 mm in diameter were recruited and randomized to undergo endobronchial ultrasonography, virtual bronchoscopy, and fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy using a 3.0-mm UTB (UTB group) or a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope (thin bronchoscope group). In the thin bronchoscope group, the use of small forceps with a GS or standard forceps without the GS was permitted. In addition, needle aspiration was performed for lesions into which an ultrasound probe could not be inserted. RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were enrolled, and 356 were included in the analyses (median largest lesional diameter, 19 mm). The overall diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the UTB group than in the thin bronchoscope group (70.1% vs 58.7%, respectively; P = .027). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the UTB group (median, 24.8 vs 26.8 min, respectively; P = .008). The complication rates were 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .574). CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB afforded a higher diagnostic yield than that using a thin bronchoscope in the diagnosis of small peripheral pulmonary lesions. TRIAL REGISTRY: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000010133; URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/.
Authors: Inbar Fried; Janine Hoelscher; Mengyu Fu; Maxwell Emerson; Tayfun Efe Ertop; Margaret Rox; Josephine Granna; Alan Kuntz; Jason A Akulian; Robert J Webster; Ron Alterovitz Journal: IEEE Int Conf Robot Autom Date: 2021-10-18
Authors: Susan Fernandes; Gareth Williams; Elvira Williams; Katjana Ehrlich; James Stone; Neil Finlayson; Mark Bradley; Robert R Thomson; Ahsan R Akram; Kevin Dhaliwal Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Alexander C Chen; Nicholas J Pastis; Amit K Mahajan; Sandeep J Khandhar; Michael J Simoff; Michael S Machuzak; Joseph Cicenia; Thomas R Gildea; Gerard A Silvestri Journal: Chest Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 9.410