Abia‐Trujillo, David

AbstractBackground and ObjectiveCurrently, computed tomography‐guided transthoracic biopsy (CTTB) is the most accurate diagnostic approach for pulmonary nodules suspected of malignancy. Traditional bronchoscopy has shown suboptimal diagnostic sensitivity, but the emergence of robotic‐assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy, maximize diagnostic yield and complete mediastinal and hilar staging in a single procedure. We aim to assess the efficacy and diagnostic performance of RAB compared to CTTB for diagnosing pulmonary nodules suspected of lung cancer.MethodsA multicenter retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent RAB and CTTB for evaluating pulmonary nodules from January 2019 to March 2021 at Mayo Clinic Florida and Mayo Clinic Rochester, United States. Clinical and demographic information, nodule characteristics, outcomes and complications were compared between RAB and CTTB.ResultsA total of 225 patients were included: 113 in the RAB group and 112 in the CTTB group. Overall diagnostic yield was 87.6% for RAB and 88.4% for CTTB. For malignant disease, RAB had a sensitivity of 82.1% and a specificity of 100%, CTTB had a sensitivity of 88.5% and a specificity of 100%. Complication rate was significantly higher for CTTB compared to RAB (17% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.002).ConclusionRAB, when available, can be as accurate as CTTB for sampling pulmonary nodules with similar or reduced complications and should be considered as a means for nodule biopsy, particularly when mediastinal staging is also clinically warranted.

AbstractBenign central airway obstruction is commonly referred as nonmalignant central airway obstruction (NMCAO). This is in part related to its lack of benign nature and significant life-quality impairment in patients. It is a pathologic entity with various etiologies and therefore a wide range of therapeutic options are available. Evidence regarding the optimal management that could provide a sustained restoration of airway patency is lacking. The lack of a common pathophysiologic pathway translating into a nonspecific symptom presenting as NMCAO has complicated treatment standardization and subsequently limited solid research to favor of one approach over another one. Our intent is to describe the limited evidence of the most utilized nonsurgical treatment for NMCAO as well as some upcoming promising therapeutic options such as mitomycin C injection, microdebrider, biodegradable stents, radiotherapy, Hybrid Knife, and endoluminal spray cryotherapy. Our goal with this manuscript is to motivate other authors to venture into prospective, multicenter, open-label trials aimed to describe long-term outcomes in patients with NMCAO.

AbstractHumidified rapid‐insufflation ventilatory exchange (HRIVE) is an option for maintenance of oxygenation. This technique allows for oxygenation while the patient is apnoeic due to continuous positive airway pressure and gas exchange through flow‐dependent dead space flushing. There is no study about the usage of HRIVE during rigid bronchoscopy. This retrospective study looked at rigid bronchoscopy cases utilizing HRIVE. Data points assessing adequacy of oxygenation and ventilation were recorded at time points: oxygen saturation (SpO2), partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2). Our nine cases had an average baseline SpO2 of 99.26%, 95.56% at 10 min into HRIVE and 95.27% at the end of HRIVE. The average baseline PaO2 was 309.01 mmHg, 124.99 mmHg at 10 min into HRIVE and 128.17 mmHg at the end of HRIVE. The average baseline PaCO2 was 43.26 mmHg, 68.76 mmHg at 10 min into HRIVE and 75.52 mmHg at the end of HRIVE. The average pre‐HRIVE end‐tidal CO2 (ETCO2) was 38.56 mmHg and the average post‐HRIVE ETCO2 was 61.22 mmHg. The average baseline pH was 7.36, 7.22 at 10 min into HRIVE and 7.19 at the end of HRIVE. In this small cohort study, HRIVE was able to maintain adequate oxygenation via the rigid bronchoscope in a select group of patients. Hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis did result after 10 min, which may predispose certain patient populations to complications. HRIVE potentially offers an additional option of oxygenation via the rigid bronchoscope.

AbstractExpiratory central airway collapse (ECAC) is a pathology gaining recognition in the medical community due to its unspecific symptoms and diagnostic challenges. Its current gold standard for diagnosis, dynamic bronchoscopy, is invasive. Current non‐invasive techniques such as computed tomography (CT) protocols have shown limited reproducibility. We present a case of a 77‐year‐old man with suspected ECAC who underwent evaluation with two different expiratory CT protocols. The initial standard end‐expiratory CT could not detect airway collapsibility. However, dynamic bronchoscopy detected severe ECAC. Afterwards, we implemented a novel CT protocol, called dynamic forced expiratory CT (cinematic), comprising detailed, consecutive helical imaging of the central airway throughout the entire respiratory cycle, detecting severe ECAC, as proven by the earlier dynamic bronchoscopy. We hypothesize this may reduce the risks and need for performing multiple invasive procedures such as dynamic bronchoscopy. Extensive studies are required to evaluate the feasibility of its implementation for diagnosing ECAC.

The coexistence of expiratory central airway collapse and diaphragmatic paralysis presents a diagnostic and treatment challenge. Both entities are underrecognized causes of dyspnea, cough, sputum production, and orthopnea. Optimal treatment must be individualized and is best achieved by a multidisciplinary team. We present a case of a patient with profound functional impairment from dyspnea and hypoxemia due to expiratory central airway collapse, complicated by bronchiectasis from recurrent respiratory infections, and diaphragmatic paralysis.

AbstractIntroductionBronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs) has emerged as an important treatment method for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a frequent complication following BLVR with EBV. However, there is no consensus on the prevention of AECOPD.ObjectivesOur study aims to compare the outcomes of different prophylactic measures on the occurrence of AECOPD after BLVR with EBV.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent BLVR with EBV at six different institutions. Emphasis was directed towards the specific practices aimed at preventing AECOPD: antibiotics, steroids, antibiotics plus steroids, or no prophylaxis. Subgroups were compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsA total of 170 patients were reviewed. The rate of AECOPD was 21.2% for the full cohort. Patients who received prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of AECOPD compared with those who did not (16.7% vs. 46.2%; p = 0.001). The rate was lowest in patients who received antibiotics alone (9.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate of AECOPD between patients who received steroids alone or antibiotics plus steroids, compared with the other subgroups. The OR for AECOPD was 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8–10.4; p = 0.001) for patients not receiving prophylaxis and 3.9 (95% CI: 1.5–10.1; p = 0.004) for prophylaxis other than antibiotics alone.ConclusionsAdministration of antibiotics after BLVR with EBV was associated with a lower rate of AECOPD. This was not observed with the use of steroids or in combination with antibiotics.

Introduction In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. Objective The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. Methods At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. Results/Conclusions The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.