Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration under general anesthesia versus bronchoscopist-directed deep sedation: A retrospective analysis.
Bronchoscopy
complications
diagnostic yield
endobronchial ultrasound
sedation
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
19
3
2019
medline:
19
3
2019
entrez:
19
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Different sedation strategies are used during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for the diagnostic workup of lung cancer including general anesthesia (GA) and moderate sedation. However, no data are available about EBUS-TBNA under deep sedation (DS) with fiberoptic intubation directed by the investigator. A retrospective analysis of EBUS-TBNAs under GA (n = 160) or DS (n = 105) was performed. Unadjusted diagnostic yield did not differ significantly between the groups (GA: 42.5% vs. DS: 53.3%P= 0.1018). Similar results were obtained when only patients with a final diagnosis of malignancy were analyzed (GA: 53.6% vs. DS: 61.5%P= 0.2675). Adverse events (AEs) occurred more often under DS (GA: 27.5% vs. DS: 59.1%P< 0.0001) due to more sedation-related problems whereas severe AEs tended to be higher under GA (GA: 7.5% vs. DS: 1.9%P= 0.0523). In summary, our data show that the diagnostic yield and the complication rate of EBUS-TBNA performed under DS are similar compared to GA. Hence, in an appropriate setting, EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely under DS.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Different sedation strategies are used during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) for the diagnostic workup of lung cancer including general anesthesia (GA) and moderate sedation. However, no data are available about EBUS-TBNA under deep sedation (DS) with fiberoptic intubation directed by the investigator.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of EBUS-TBNAs under GA (n = 160) or DS (n = 105) was performed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Unadjusted diagnostic yield did not differ significantly between the groups (GA: 42.5% vs. DS: 53.3%P= 0.1018). Similar results were obtained when only patients with a final diagnosis of malignancy were analyzed (GA: 53.6% vs. DS: 61.5%P= 0.2675). Adverse events (AEs) occurred more often under DS (GA: 27.5% vs. DS: 59.1%P< 0.0001) due to more sedation-related problems whereas severe AEs tended to be higher under GA (GA: 7.5% vs. DS: 1.9%P= 0.0523).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, our data show that the diagnostic yield and the complication rate of EBUS-TBNA performed under DS are similar compared to GA. Hence, in an appropriate setting, EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely under DS.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30880723
pii: 254010
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_65_18
pmc: PMC6590007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
204-208Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Thorax. 2006 Sep;61(9):795-8
pubmed: 16738038
J Thorac Oncol. 2008 Jun;3(6):577-82
pubmed: 18520794
Respiration. 2009;78(2):203-8
pubmed: 19246874
Eur Respir J. 2012 Mar;39(3):685-90
pubmed: 21852332
Chest. 2013 Apr;143(4):1044-1053
pubmed: 23117878
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013 Apr;10(2):121-6
pubmed: 23607840
Eur Respir J. 2014 Feb;43(2):591-601
pubmed: 23900984
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 Apr 1;191(7):796-803
pubmed: 25574801
Respiration. 2016;92(4):266-273
pubmed: 27614989
Endosc Ultrasound. 2016 Sep-Oct;5(5):300-306
pubmed: 27803902
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 12;12(4):e0175394
pubmed: 28403208