Anesthetic Considerations for Mediastinal Staging Procedures for Lung Cancer

Cata, J.; Lasala, Javier; Mena, Gabriel E.; Mehran, J.

doi:10.1053/j.jvca.2017.08.041

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The morbidity and mortality of mediastinoscopy (2.5% and 0.2%, respectively) 19,20 is greater than that of EBUS-TBNA (1.2%, 0.01%), 21 and includes a number of rare but catastrophic complications, including vocal cord palsy and injury to major mediastinal vessels. 22 Furthermore, previous cost-benefit analyses have estimated that initial use of EBUS-TBNA in NSCLC diagnosis results in cost savings F I G U R E 1 CONSORT flow diagram illustrating method of diagnosis for patients ultimately diagnosed with lymphoma. Diagnoses grouped by utility of EBUS-TBNA for each patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic performance of 19‐gauge endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) in suspected lymphoma: A prospective cohort study

Lim

Steinfort

Irving

2020

Clinical Respiratory J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) represents a minimally invasive approach in the evaluation of mediastinal/hilar lymphadenopathy. Diagnostic performance of EBUS‐TBNA in lymphoma using standard 22‐gauge (22G) needle is limited by sample volumes that are often inadequate for histopathological assessment. Objectives To evaluate the diagnostic utility of 19‐gauge (19G) EBUS‐TBNA needle in the evaluation of suspected lymphoma. Methods We prospectively collected clinical and procedural information for patients undergoing EBUS‐TBNA with 19G needle at Royal Melbourne Hospital for investigation of mediastinal/hilar lymphadenopathy, where lymphoma was considered in the differential diagnosis. All consecutive patients between June 15, 2016 and July 10, 2019 were included. If definitive diagnosis was not achieved on EBUS‐TBNA, final diagnosis was determined through subsequent investigation or a minimum of 6 months radiologic surveillance. Results Thirty‐nine patients underwent EBUS‐TBNA using 19G needle for evaluation of suspected lymphoma. Thirteen patients had a prior diagnosis of lymphoma (33%). Lymphoma was ultimately diagnosed in 23 patients (59%). Of these, 10 had a prior diagnosis of lymphoma (43%). 19G EBUS‐TBNA demonstrated lymphoma in 19 patients, with a sensitivity of 83% (95% CI 66‐93) for detection of lymphoma. Four patients required surgical biopsy to definitively characterise lymphoma subtype. Therefore, sensitivity of 19G EBUS‐TBNA for definitive diagnosis of lymphoma was 65% (95% CI 45‐81). In patients with a prior diagnosis of lymphoma, sensitivity for definitive diagnosis of lymphoma was 80% (95% CI 48‐95). Conclusion Diagnostic performance of 19G EBUS‐TBNA appears similar to standard 22G needle in detection and definitive diagnosis of lymphoma. Further invasive testing remains necessary following non‐diagnostic EBUS‐TBNA procedures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%