Clinical outcomes of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound using a guide sheath for diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions in patients with pulmonary emphysema.
Bronchoscopy
Diagnosis
Lung neoplasms
Pulmonary emphysema
Ultrasound
Journal
Respiratory research
ISSN: 1465-993X
Titre abrégé: Respir Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101090633
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2019
06 Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
accepted:
31
07
2019
entrez:
8
8
2019
pubmed:
8
8
2019
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Generally, structural destruction of lung parenchyma, such as pulmonary emphysema, is considered to be related to the low diagnostic yields and high complication rates of lung biopsies of peripheral lung lesions. Currently, little is known about the clinical outcomes of using endobronchial ultrasound with a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) to diagnose peripheral lesions in patients with emphysema. This retrospective study was performed to identify the clinical outcomes of EBUS-GS in patients with pulmonary emphysema. This study included 393 consecutive patients who received EBUS-GS between February 2017 and April 2018. The patients were classified according to the severity of their emphysema, and factors possibly contributing to a successful EBUS-GS procedure were evaluated. The overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS in patients with no or mild emphysema was significantly higher than in those with moderate or severe pulmonary emphysema (78% vs. 61%, P = 0.007). There were no procedure-related complications. The presence of a bronchus sign on CT (P < 0.001) and a "within the lesion" status on EBUS (P = 0.009) were independently associated with a successful EBUS-GS procedure. Although the diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS in patients with moderate-to-severe emphysema was relatively low, a bronchus sign and "within the lesion" status on EBUS were contributing factors for a successful EBUS-GS. EBUS-GS is a safe procedure with an acceptable diagnostic yield, even when performed in patients with pulmonary emphysema. The presence of a bronchus sign and "within the lesion" status on EBUS were predictors of a successful procedure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Generally, structural destruction of lung parenchyma, such as pulmonary emphysema, is considered to be related to the low diagnostic yields and high complication rates of lung biopsies of peripheral lung lesions. Currently, little is known about the clinical outcomes of using endobronchial ultrasound with a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) to diagnose peripheral lesions in patients with emphysema.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study was performed to identify the clinical outcomes of EBUS-GS in patients with pulmonary emphysema. This study included 393 consecutive patients who received EBUS-GS between February 2017 and April 2018. The patients were classified according to the severity of their emphysema, and factors possibly contributing to a successful EBUS-GS procedure were evaluated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS in patients with no or mild emphysema was significantly higher than in those with moderate or severe pulmonary emphysema (78% vs. 61%, P = 0.007). There were no procedure-related complications. The presence of a bronchus sign on CT (P < 0.001) and a "within the lesion" status on EBUS (P = 0.009) were independently associated with a successful EBUS-GS procedure. Although the diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS in patients with moderate-to-severe emphysema was relatively low, a bronchus sign and "within the lesion" status on EBUS were contributing factors for a successful EBUS-GS.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
EBUS-GS is a safe procedure with an acceptable diagnostic yield, even when performed in patients with pulmonary emphysema. The presence of a bronchus sign and "within the lesion" status on EBUS were predictors of a successful procedure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31387600
doi: 10.1186/s12931-019-1149-0
pii: 10.1186/s12931-019-1149-0
pmc: PMC6683511
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
177Références
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001 Aug;122(2):325-30
pubmed: 11479506
Respiration. 2004 May-Jun;71(3):260-8
pubmed: 15133346
Chest. 2004 Sep;126(3):959-65
pubmed: 15364779
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 Jul 1;176(1):36-41
pubmed: 17379850
Chest. 2007 Aug;132(2):603-8
pubmed: 17573504
Radiology. 2008 Mar;246(3):697-722
pubmed: 18195376
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1991 Dec;157(6):1181-5
pubmed: 1950861
Respirology. 2009 Aug;14(6):859-64
pubmed: 19703067
Eur Respir J. 2011 Apr;37(4):902-10
pubmed: 20693253
Eur Respir Rev. 2011 Mar;20(119):7-22
pubmed: 21357888
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
Thorax. 2011 Dec;66(12):1072-7
pubmed: 21749984
Chest. 2012 Aug;142(2):385-393
pubmed: 21980059
Respiration. 2012;84(2):89-97
pubmed: 22868355
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49125
pubmed: 23145094
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e142S-e165S
pubmed: 23649436
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e93S-e120S
pubmed: 23649456
N Engl J Med. 2013 May 23;368(21):1980-91
pubmed: 23697514
Cancer Control. 2014 Jan;21(1):9-14
pubmed: 24357736
Lung. 2014 Oct;192(5):639-48
pubmed: 25108403
Ann Intern Med. 2015 Apr 7;162(7):485-91
pubmed: 25664444
Radiology. 2015 Oct;277(1):192-205
pubmed: 25961632
BMC Med Imaging. 2015 Jun 21;15:21
pubmed: 26092497
Respiration. 2015;90(2):129-35
pubmed: 26112297
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 2;12(6):e0178078
pubmed: 28574995
BMC Pulm Med. 2018 Aug 13;18(1):137
pubmed: 30103727