Francys C Verdial1, Kathleen S Berfield1, Douglas E Wood1, Michael S Mulligan1, Joshua A Roth2, David O Francis3, Farhood Farjah4. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. 2. Hutchinson Institute for Cancer Outcomes Research, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: ffarjah@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There remains debate over the best invasive diagnostic modality for mediastinal nodal evaluation. Prior studies have limited generalizability and insufficient power to detect differences in rare adverse events. We compared the risks and costs of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided nodal aspiration and mediastinoscopy performed for any indication in a large national cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2007-2015) with MarketScan, a claims database of individuals with employer-provided insurance in the United States. Patients who underwent multimodality mediastinal evaluation (n = 1,396) or same-day pulmonary resection (n = 2,130) were excluded. Regression models were used to evaluate associations between diagnostic modalities and risks and costs while adjusting for patient characteristics, year, concomitant bronchoscopic procedures, and lung cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 30,570 patients, 49% underwent EBUS. Severe adverse events-pneumothorax, hemothorax, airway/vascular injuries, or death-were rare and invariant between EBUS and mediastinoscopy (0.3% vs 0.4%; P = .189). The rate of vocal cord paralysis was lower for EBUS (1.4% vs 2.2%; P < .001). EBUS was associated with a lower adjusted risk of severe adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55) and vocal cord paralysis (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60). The mean cost of EBUS was $2,211 less than mediastinoscopy ($6,816 vs $9,023; P < .001). After adjustment this difference decreased to $1,650 (95% CI, $1,525-$1,776). CONCLUSIONS: When performed as isolated procedures, EBUS is associated with lower risks and costs compared with mediastinoscopy. Future studies comparing the effectiveness of EBUS vs mediastinoscopy in the community at large will help determine which procedure is superior or if trade-offs exist.
BACKGROUND: There remains debate over the best invasive diagnostic modality for mediastinal nodal evaluation. Prior studies have limited generalizability and insufficient power to detect differences in rare adverse events. We compared the risks and costs of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided nodal aspiration and mediastinoscopy performed for any indication in a large national cohort. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study (2007-2015) with MarketScan, a claims database of individuals with employer-provided insurance in the United States. Patients who underwent multimodality mediastinal evaluation (n = 1,396) or same-day pulmonary resection (n = 2,130) were excluded. Regression models were used to evaluate associations between diagnostic modalities and risks and costs while adjusting for patient characteristics, year, concomitant bronchoscopic procedures, and lung cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 30,570 patients, 49% underwent EBUS. Severe adverse events-pneumothorax, hemothorax, airway/vascular injuries, or death-were rare and invariant between EBUS and mediastinoscopy (0.3% vs 0.4%; P = .189). The rate of vocal cord paralysis was lower for EBUS (1.4% vs 2.2%; P < .001). EBUS was associated with a lower adjusted risk of severe adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55) and vocal cord paralysis (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60). The mean cost of EBUS was $2,211 less than mediastinoscopy ($6,816 vs $9,023; P < .001). After adjustment this difference decreased to $1,650 (95% CI, $1,525-$1,776). CONCLUSIONS: When performed as isolated procedures, EBUS is associated with lower risks and costs compared with mediastinoscopy. Future studies comparing the effectiveness of EBUS vs mediastinoscopy in the community at large will help determine which procedure is superior or if trade-offs exist.
Authors: Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Andrew Pierre; Gail Darling; Marc de Perrot; Thomas Waddell; Michael Johnston; Gilda da Cunha Santos; William Geddie; Scott Boerner; Lisa W Le; Shaf Keshavjee Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-10-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: David O Francis; Elizabeth C Pearce; Shenghua Ni; C Gaelyn Garrett; David F Penson Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Paul De Leyn; Christophe Dooms; Jaroslaw Kuzdzal; Didier Lardinois; Bernward Passlick; Ramon Rami-Porta; Akif Turna; Paul Van Schil; Frederico Venuta; David Waller; Walter Weder; Marcin Zielinski Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2014-02-26 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: George A Eapen; Archan M Shah; Xiudong Lei; Carlos A Jimenez; Rodolfo C Morice; Lonny Yarmus; Joshua Filner; Cynthia Ray; Gaetane Michaud; Sara R Greenhill; Mona Sarkiss; Roberto Casal; David Rice; David E Ost Journal: Chest Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: L D Sharples; C Jackson; E Wheaton; G Griffith; J T Annema; C Dooms; K G Tournoy; E Deschepper; V Hughes; L Magee; M Buxton; R C Rintoul Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Benjamin D Ferguson; Gregory D Jones; Matthew Skovgard; Daniela Molena; James Huang; Matthew J Bott; Smita Sihag; Bernard J Park; Prasad S Adusumilli; Robert J Downey; James M Isbell; Valerie W Rusch; Manjit S Bains; David R Jones; Gaetano Rocco Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 5.102