Moderate Sedation Versus General Anesthesia for Endobronchial Ultrasound-guided Transbronchial Biopsy in an Academic Training Center

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中等镇静与全麻在学术培训中心超声引导下支气管活检中的比较
支气管内超声经支气管针吸(EBUS-TBNA)是一种广泛应用于肺癌诊断和分期的方法。几项研究表明EBUS-TBNA在减少侵入性纵隔取样方面的诊断效用。目前的建议是,大多数肺癌患者应采用EBUS-TBNA进行纵隔分期。EBUS-TBNA可以在全身麻醉或中度镇静下安全进行,根据以往的研究,麻醉的选择对结果的影响是可变的。我们研究了在全麻和中度镇静下进行EBUS-TBNA的培训计划中,受训者进行EBUS-TBNA的差异。这项回顾性研究评估了121例患者,他们在一名接受过肺部介入训练的教师的监督下接受了同伴驱动的EBUS-TBNA。我们发现全麻和中度镇静在诊断率、手术时间和并发症发生率方面没有差异。然而,我们确实发现全麻组总体上取样的总淋巴结数量较高,同时取样的肺门淋巴结数量也较高。我们得出结论,EBUS-TBNA可以在全麻或适度镇静的情况下安全进行,并且具有良好的诊断能力,而不会影响总体结果。这是有益的,因为它可以降低总体成本,并且可以在不需要麻醉师的情况下完成手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Pulmonary Medicine
Clinical Pulmonary Medicine Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
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.
期刊最新文献
Systemic sclerosis associated myopathy: how to treat. Axillary lymphadenopathy in a high-risk breast screening patient following the COVID-19 vaccine: a diagnostic conundrum. Is a Trial of Observation Safer Than Intervention With Spontaneous Pneumothorax? The Complex Relationship Between Poor Sleep Quality and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease The Diagnosis of Hypersensitivity Pneumonitis and the Role of Lung Biopsy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1