| Literature DB >> 33708915 |
Huan Hu1, Chuling Li2, Tangfeng Lv3, Huijuan Li2, Yangbo Hu4, Qin Shen5, Mari Mino-Kenudson6, Luca Bertolaccini7, Gaetano Rocco8, Pavlos Zarogoulidis9, Fang Zhang3, Dang Lin1, Hongbing Liu3, Yong Song2,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage is the second most common complication of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB), and at present, there is no effective prevention strategy. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) has the advantage of clearly visualizing blood supply within the lesion and aiding in the imaging of blood vessels, which can reduce hemorrhage complicating PTNB. As no large-sample studies were evaluating whether CECT could reduce hemorrhage, we conducted the present retrospective study.Entities:
Keywords: Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB); contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT); hemorrhage
Year: 2021 PMID: 33708915 PMCID: PMC7944326 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-4384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Figure 1Flow diagram of patient inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Patient demographics and lesion characteristics
| Characteristic | CECT (n=555) | Non-contrast CT (n=727) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of biopsies | % | Number of biopsies | % | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| <65 | 357 | 64.3 | 468 | 64.4 | |
| ≥65 | 198 | 35.7 | 259 | 35.6 | |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 365 | 65.8 | 494 | 68.0 | |
| Female | 190 | 34.2 | 233 | 32.0 | |
| Smoking history (year package) | |||||
| ≤20 | 375 | 67.5 | 472 | 64.9 | |
| >20 | 180 | 32.5 | 255 | 35.1 | |
| Puncture position | |||||
| Supine | 229 | 41.3 | 293 | 40.3 | |
| Prone | 295 | 53.2 | 389 | 53.5 | |
| Lateral | 31 | 5.5 | 45 | 6.2 | |
| Lesion location | |||||
| Upper lobe | 268 | 48.3 | 387 | 53.2 | |
| Middle lobe | 43 | 7.7 | 31 | 4.3 | |
| Lower lobe | 244 | 44.0 | 309 | 42.5 | |
| Lesion size (cm) | |||||
| ≤3 | 183 | 33.0 | 265 | 36.5 | |
| >3 | 372 | 67.0 | 462 | 63.5 | |
| Pathology | |||||
| Malignant | 363 | 65.4 | 457 | 62.9 | |
| Benign | 159 | 28.6 | 222 | 30.5 | |
| Non-diagnostic | 33 | 6.0 | 48 | 6.6 | |
CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography; CT, computed tomography.
Grade of hemorrhage complication after percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) between CECT group and non-contrast CT group
| Grade | CECT (n=555) | Non-contrast CT (n=727) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No hemorrhage | 464 | 559 | 0.003** |
| Hemorrhage | 91 | 168 | |
| Mild | 87 | 160 | 1.000 |
| Moderate/severe | 4 | 8 |
**, P<0.01. CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography.
Hemorrhage and vessels distribution observed by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT)
| Vessels distribution | CECT (n=555) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No hemorrhage (n=464) | Hemorrhage (n=91) | ||
| Peripheral of lesion | 0.016* | ||
| Y | 263 | 64 | |
| N | 201 | 27 | |
| Internal of lesion | 0.000*** | ||
| Y | 174 | 61 | |
| N | 290 | 30 | |
*, P<0.05; ***, P<0.001.
The difference of hemorrhage incidence between non-contrast CT group and CECT group after matching hemorrhage and non-hemorrhage cases in variable proportions
| Proportion (hemorrhage: non-hemorrhage) | Non-contrast CT (n) | CECT (n) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1:1 | 144 | 115 | 0.039* |
| 168 | 91 | ||
| 1:2 | 292 | 226 | 0.028* |
| 168 | 91 | ||
| 1:3 | 434 | 343 | 0.013* |
| 168 | 91 |
*, P<0.05. CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography.
Figure 2Propensity score distribution of hemorrhage and non-hemorrhage patients after matching at different ratios. (A) 1:1; (B) 1:2; (C) 1:3.
Univariate analysis of risk factors associated with hemorrhage after percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB)
| Variables | No hemorrhage, n (%) | Hemorrhage, n (%) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.7±12.80 | 60±12.35 | 0.160 |
| Sex | 0.039* | ||
| Male | 701 (68.5) | 160 (61.8) | |
| Female | 322 (31.5) | 99 (38.2) | |
| Lesion location | 0.155 | ||
| Upper lobe | 517 (50.5) | 138 (53.3) | |
| Middle lobe | 54 (5.3) | 20 (7.7) | |
| Lower lobe | 452 (44.2) | 101 (39.0) | |
| Lesion size (cm) | 0.024* | ||
| ≤3 | 342 (33.4) | 106 (40.9) | |
| >3 | 681 (66.6) | 153 (59.1) | |
| Puncture position | 0.008** | ||
| Supine | 400 (39.1) | 122 (47.1) | |
| Prone | 554 (54.2) | 130 (50.2) | |
| Lateral | 69 (6.7) | 7 (2.7) | |
| Number of puncture | 0.006** | ||
| 1 | 275 (26.9) | 48 (18.5) | |
| ≥2 | 748 (73.1) | 211 (81.5) | |
| Depth of needle tract (cm) | 0.012* | ||
| ≤4 | 157 (15.3) | 24 (9.2) | |
| >4 | 866 (84.7) | 235 (90.8) | |
| Pathology | 0.539 | ||
| Malignant | 647 (63.2) | 173 (66.8) | |
| Benign | 309 (30.2) | 72 (27.8) | |
| Non-diagnostic | 67 (6.5) | 14 (5.4) |
*, P<0.05; **, P<0.01.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis for risk factors of hemorrhage
| Variables | OR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| CECT | ||
| Y | 0.671 (0.499–0.902) | 0.008** |
| N | Reference | |
| Lesion size (cm) | 0.990 (0.983–0.997) | 0.005** |
| Puncture position | ||
| Supine | 2.734 (1.207–6.194) | 0.016* |
| Prone | 2.107 (0.932–4.764) | 0.073 |
| Lateral | Reference | |
| Number of puncture | ||
| 1 | Reference | |
| 2 | 1.546 (1.065–2.244) | 0.022* |
| 3 | 1.673 (1.082–2.588) | 0.021* |
| 4 | 8.746 (2.891–26.456) | 0.000*** |
| Depth of needle tract (cm) | 1.017 (1.009–1.025) | 0.000*** |
*, P<0.05; **, P<0.01; ***, P<0.001. OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval; CECT, contrast-enhanced computed tomography.