Yu Lee-Mateus, Alejandra

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.

AbstractBackgroundEndobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) is a safe and minimally invasive procedure for evaluating hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The reported sensitivity and specificity of EBUS‐TBNA are 95% and 97%, respectively. A comparison of diagnostic sensitivity for lymph nodes suspected of lung cancer according to needle size in EBUS‐TBNA is needed.ObjectivesTo compare the diagnostic sensitivity of the 19‐G, 21‐G, 22‐G and 25‐G needles for lymph nodes suspected of non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using EBUS‐TBNA.MethodsA literature search from PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, DOAJ and CENTRAL through October 2020 was performed by two reviewers. The extracted data were evaluated using STATA® and Open Meta Analyst software for meta‐analysis with a binary method model to compare sensitivity, specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curve for each needle size.ResultsFourteen studies including 1296 participants were considered for the analysis. The overall sensitivity of EBUS‐TBNA was 88.2% (95% CI 84%, 91%) and 93% (95% CI 88%, 95%) for the 19‐G needle, 87.6% (95% CI 79.6%, 92.8%) for the 21‐G needle and 85% (95% CI 80%, 88%) for the 22‐G needle. The overall sensitivity of EBUS‐TBNA for diagnosing NSCLC was 88.3% (95% CI, 81%, 93%) and 92.9% (95% CI, 85%, 97%) for the 19‐G needle, 89.4% (95% CI 79.4%, 94.8%) for the 21‐G needle and 82.1% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for the 22‐G needle.ConclusionThe 19‐G, 21‐G and 22‐G needles present a similarly high diagnostic sensitivity in EBUS‐TBNA. The 19‐G needle provided better sample adequacy for molecular and immunohistochemical testing, improving diagnostic yield in this subgroup.