Medtronic. Dr. Nead has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bowling has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Murgu has received personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Pinnacle Biologics, Olympus, Cook, Auris Robotics, and Elsevier; and has stock ownership in Concordia, Boston Scientific, and Merck. Dr. Krimsky has received personal fees from Medtronic, Innovital Systems, Gala Therapeutic, SOC, and Peytant; has stock ownership with Innovital Systems and CSA Medical; and has patents pending with Medtronic and Merit. Dr. Murillo has received support from Medtronic. Dr. LeMense has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Minnich has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bansal has received personal fees from Medtronic, Pinnacle Biologics, Sunovion, and Veran Medical. Dr. Ellis has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Mahajan has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Gildea has received personal fees from Medtronic. Dr. Bechara has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Sztejman has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Flandes has received grants from BTG-PneumRx and Ambu; and personal fees from Medtronic, BTG-PneumRx, Olympus, Ambu, PulmonX, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Rickman has received personal fees from Medtronic, Veran Medical, BD, Olympus, and Abbvie. Dr. Benzaquen has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Hogarth has received personal fees from Medtronic, Auris Surgical Robotics, Boston Scientific, Grifols, Shire, and CSL; and has stock ownership with Auris Surgical Robotics. Dr. Linden has received support from Medtronic. Dr. Wahidi has received personal fees from Medtronic and Veran Medical. Dr. Mattingley has received personal fees from Medtronic and is current employee of Medtronic (employment began after completion of enrollment). Dr. Hood is an employee with stock ownership at Medtronic; and has stock ownership with Boston Scientific. Ms. Lin and Ms. Wolvers are employees with stock ownership at Medtronic. Dr. Khandar has received personal fees from Medtronic.

No abstract

In this series, EBUS- and EUS-guided transvascular approach for biopsy of mediastinal, hilar, and lung lesions was not associated with significant complications. However, careful selection of potential candidates and close periprocedural observation are mandatory.

No abstract

RTB is associated with a 6.7% non‐lethal complication rate, a 1.2% periprocedural mortality rate and a 5.6% 30‐day mortality in a large multicentre cohort of patients with benign and malignant airway disease.

Background: Fiducial markers (FMs) help direct stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and localization for surgical resection in lung cancer management. We report the safety, accuracy, and practice patterns of FM placement utilizing electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB). Methods: NAVIGATE is a global, prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of ENB using the superDimension™ navigation system. This prospectively collected subgroup analysis presents the patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and 1-month outcomes in patients undergoing ENB-guided FM placement. Follow up through 24 months is ongoing. Results: Two-hundred fifty-eight patients from 21 centers in the United States were included. General anesthesia was used in 68.2%. Lesion location was confirmed by radial endobronchial ultrasound in 34.5% of procedures. The median ENB procedure time was 31.0 min. Concurrent lung lesion biopsy was conducted in 82.6% (213/258) of patients. A mean of 2.2 ± 1.7 FMs (median 1.0 FMs) were placed per patient and 99.2% were accurately positioned based on subjective operator assessment. Follow-up imaging showed that 94.1% (239/254) of markers remained in place. The procedure-related pneumothorax rate was 5.4% (14/258) overall and 3.1% (8/258) grade ⩾ 2 based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. The procedure-related grade ⩾ 4 respiratory failure rate was 1.6% (4/258). There were no bronchopulmonary hemorrhages. Conclusion: ENB is an accurate and versatile tool to place FMs for SBRT and localization for surgical resection with low complication rates. The ability to perform a biopsy safely in the same procedure can also increase efficiency. The impact of practice pattern variations on therapeutic effectiveness requires further study. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02410837.

In this pilot study to examine energy sealing of PA branches in a simulated ex vivo model, vascular sealing using energy was effective and was able to sustain high intraluminal bursting pressures. Further research is needed to determine the in vivo and long-term safety of PA branch energy sealing.

The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology has developed a set of guidelines for pulmonary cytology including indications for bronchial brushings, washings and endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration, technical recommendations for cytologic sampling, recommended terminology and classification scheme, recommendations for ancillary testing and recommendations for postcytologic diagnosis management and follow-up. All recommendation documents are based on the expertise of the authors, extensive literature review and feedback from presentations at national and international conferences. This document selectively presents the results of these discussions. The present document summarizes the recommendations for clinical and imaging evaluation of pulmonary lesions along with the indications for cytologic studies regarding these abnormalities. Preprocedural requirements regarding brushing, washing and needle aspiration procedures are discussed also. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2016;44:1010-1023. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.