Does the guide sheath outperform the non-guide sheath method in endobronchial ultrasound-guided biopsy of peripheral...

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial biopsy with or without a guide sheath (EBUS-GS or EBUS-nGS) is commonly utilized for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the diagnostic yield, surgical time, and safety of EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS in patients presenting with PPLs, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making.

We conducted a systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) up to January 2024. Two researchers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the studies, and conducted statistical analysis through Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 14.0. Subgroup analysis was used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plot tests. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to evaluate the robustness of the combined results.

The meta-analysis included data from nine studies comprising 2,898 patients. No publication bias was detected. There was no difference in the overall diagnostic rate of EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS for PPLs [odds ratio (OR): 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.08, Z-score (Z) =1.37, P=0.17]. Conversely, in cases utilizing a bronchoscope with an outer diameter of 3.0 mm (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.84, Z=2.86, P=0.004), a 1.7-mm bronchoscope channel (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.96, Z=2.21, P=0.03), or lesions ≤30 mm in size, or lesions situated in the lower lobe of the lung (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.91, Z=2.36, P=0.02), the diagnostic rate was higher in the EBUS-nGS group. However, the EBUS-GS group demonstrated a tremendous advantage in terms of safety (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.93, Z=2.33, P=0.02).

EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS showed no significant difference in the overall diagnostic rate for PPLs. When using a bronchoscope with an outer diameter of 3.0 mm or a channel diameter of 1.7 mm, or when lesions are ≤30 mm or located in the lower lobe of the lung, EBUS-nGS demonstrated a higher diagnostic rate, and EBUS-nGS demonstrated a higher diagnostic rate. However, EBUS-GS exhibited more tremendous advantages in terms of safety.