[Non-real-time endobronchial bronchoscopy ultrasound assisted transbronchial lung biopsy in diagnosing peripheral...

To evaluate the role of non-real-time endobronchial bronchoscopy ultrasound(EBUS) assisted transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) in diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL).

One hundred and five patients [68 males and 37 females, mean age (59 ± 12) years, ranged from 39 - 81 years] with PPL confirmed by computered tomography (CT) were recruited in this study between June 1st 2011 and March 1st 2012. All cases received bronchoscopy examinations and presented with roughly normal results. Fifty-four cases received EBUS examinations. For peripheral lesions with accessible EBUS images, blind biopsy was performed with biopsy forceps through pathways of the ultrasonic probe after the retreat of the probe. In those cases without accessible EBUS images, blind biopsy was performed based on the localization by image data. The other 51 cases without EBUS testing underwent blind biopsy on the localization by image data. Positive rates of pathological diagnosis of the 2 groups were compared. Analysis was by χ(2)-test.

In 54 patients who received EBUS examinations, 76% (41/54) of PPLs were detected performed by EBUS. The positive rate of the EBUS assisted TBLB group was 67% (36/54), compared with 45% (23/51) in the general TBLB group. There was a better diagnostic rate (P < 0.05) in the EBUS assisted TBLB group than the general TBLB group. Thirteen patients without accessible EBUS images obtained negative pathological results. The diagnosis rate of EBUS assisted TBLB on lesions with ≤ 30 mm minimum diameter was 44% (8/18), lower than 78% (28/36) on lesions with > 30 mm minimum diameter (P < 0.05). In terms of diagnosis rate on lesions with ≤ 30 mm minimum diameter, EBUS assisted TBLB was 44% (8/18), higher than 12% (2/17) of TBLB alone (P < 0.05). As for lesions with > 30 mm minimum diameter, diagnosis rate of EBUS assisted TBLB was 52% (28/54) and TBLB alone was 41% (21/51), representing insignificant difference (P > 0.05). In the EBUS assisted TBLB group, we performed 269 blind biopsies, with an average of 4.8 times per case, whereas the general TBLB group required 398 times, with an average of 7.8 times per case. EBUS assisted TBLB decreased the operation times of blind biopsy (P < 0.05) to acquire adequate and appropriate specimen. Complications of biopsy occurred in this study included slight haemoptysis (61/105, 58.1%), chest pain (25/105, 23.8%) and pneumothorax (2/105, 1.9%). Patients with these complications recovered spontaneously without special managements.

Non-real-time EBUS assisted TBLB could improve diagnostic positive rate without increasing operational risk. In most cases, the blind biopsy did not succeed if EBUS failed to detect the lesions. The success rate of non-real-time EBUS assisted TBLB was related to the minimum diameter of PPL. In terms of diagnosis rate on lesions with ≤ 30 mm minimum diameter, EBUS assisted TBLB was higher than TBLB alone. As for lesions with >30mm minimum diameter, there was no significant difference in the diagnosis rate between these 2 groups. EBUS assisted TBLB decreased the times of blind biopsy process (P < 0.05) to obtain adequate and appropriate specimen.