Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Conventional versus Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Hilar/Mediastinal Lymph Adenopathies: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Conventional versus Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Hilar/Mediastinal Lymph Adenopathies: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Do you wish to request the book?
Conventional versus Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Hilar/Mediastinal Lymph Adenopathies: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Conventional versus Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration for the Diagnosis of Hilar/Mediastinal Lymph Adenopathies: A Randomized Controlled Trial
2017
Overview
Background: Conventional transbronchial needle aspiration (c-TBNA) and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are both valuable diagnostic techniques for the diagnosis of hilar/mediastinal lesions. Although a superiority of EBUS-TBNA over c-TBNA may be expected, evidence-based data on a direct comparison between these 2 procedures are still lacking. Objectives: We aimed to test the superiority of EBUS-TBNA over c-TBNA in a randomized trial and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of a staged strategy, including c-TBNA as initial test followed by EBUS-TBNA, in case of inconclusive results at rapid on-site evaluation. Methods: Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to either the EBUS-TBNA or c-TBNA group. The primary endpoint was to test the superiority of EBUS-TBNA sensitivity over c-TBNA. The secondary endpoints included the sensitivity of the staged strategy, as well as costs and safety related to each procedure and to their sequential combination. Results: A total of 253 patients were randomized to either EBUS-TBNA (n = 127) or c-TBNA (n = 126), and 31 patients of the c-TBNA group subsequently underwent EBUS-TBNA. The sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was higher, but not significantly superior to that of c-TBNA (respectively. 92% [95% CI 87-97] and 82% [95% CI 75-90], p > 0.05). The sensitivity of the staged strategy was 94% (95% CI 89-98). No major adverse events occurred. Conclusions: EBUS-TBNA was the single best diagnostic tool, although not significantly superior to c-TBNA. Due to the favorable cost-effectiveness profile of their sequential combination, in selected scenarios with a high probability of success from the standard procedure, these should not be necessarily intended as competitive and the staged strategy could be considered in clinical practice.
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Subject
/ Aged
/ Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - diagnosis
/ Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung - pathology
/ Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - diagnosis
/ Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - pathology
/ Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - economics
/ Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - methods
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Image-Guided Biopsy - economics
/ Image-Guided Biopsy - methods
/ Male
/ Mediastinal Diseases - diagnosis
/ Mediastinal Diseases - pathology
/ Small Cell Lung Carcinoma - diagnosis
