R. Ronaghi, W. Kareem, B. Yaghmour, Ramyar Mahdavi
{"title":"Moderate Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Biopsy in an Academic Training Center","authors":"R. Ronaghi, W. Kareem, B. Yaghmour, Ramyar Mahdavi","doi":"10.1097/CPM.0000000000000349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a widely used procedure for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Several studies have shown the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TBNA effectiveness for decreasing the need for invasive mediastinal sampling. The current recommendation is that most patients with lung cancer should undergo mediastinal staging with EBUS-TBNA. EBUS-TBNA can be safely performed under general anesthesia or moderate sedation, and, according to previous studies, the choice of anesthesia on the effect of outcomes has been variable. We investigated differences between EBUS-TBNA performed with general anesthesia and moderate sedation in a training program in which trainees performed EBUS-TBNA. This retrospective study evaluated 121 patients undergoing fellow-driven EBUS-TBNA under the supervision of an interventional pulmonary trained faculty member. We found no difference between general anesthesia and moderate sedation in terms of diagnostic yield, procedural time, or complication rates. We did, however, find an overall higher number of total lymph nodes sampled in the general anesthesia group, as well as a higher number of hilar lymph nodes sampled. We conclude that EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely and with good diagnostic ability with either general anesthesia or moderate sedation in a fellowship-driven program without affecting overall outcomes. This is beneficial, as it can reduce overall cost and the ability to do the procedure without the need of an anesthesiologist.","PeriodicalId":10393,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pulmonary Medicine","volume":"27 1","pages":"39 - 42"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/CPM.0000000000000349","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CPM.0000000000000349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a widely used procedure for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Several studies have shown the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TBNA effectiveness for decreasing the need for invasive mediastinal sampling. The current recommendation is that most patients with lung cancer should undergo mediastinal staging with EBUS-TBNA. EBUS-TBNA can be safely performed under general anesthesia or moderate sedation, and, according to previous studies, the choice of anesthesia on the effect of outcomes has been variable. We investigated differences between EBUS-TBNA performed with general anesthesia and moderate sedation in a training program in which trainees performed EBUS-TBNA. This retrospective study evaluated 121 patients undergoing fellow-driven EBUS-TBNA under the supervision of an interventional pulmonary trained faculty member. We found no difference between general anesthesia and moderate sedation in terms of diagnostic yield, procedural time, or complication rates. We did, however, find an overall higher number of total lymph nodes sampled in the general anesthesia group, as well as a higher number of hilar lymph nodes sampled. We conclude that EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely and with good diagnostic ability with either general anesthesia or moderate sedation in a fellowship-driven program without affecting overall outcomes. This is beneficial, as it can reduce overall cost and the ability to do the procedure without the need of an anesthesiologist.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Pulmonary Medicine provides a forum for the discussion of important new knowledge in the field of pulmonary medicine that is of interest and relevance to the practitioner. This goal is achieved through mini-reviews on focused sub-specialty topics in areas covered within the journal. These areas include: Obstructive Airways Disease; Respiratory Infections; Interstitial, Inflammatory, and Occupational Diseases; Clinical Practice Management; Critical Care/Respiratory Care; Colleagues in Respiratory Medicine; and Topics in Respiratory Medicine.