Fiducial marker placement with electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy: a subgroup analysis of the prospective, multicenter NAVIGATE study

Fiducial markers (FMs) help direct stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and localization for surgical resection in lung cancer management. We report the safety, accuracy, and practice patterns of FM placement utilizing electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB). Methods: NAVIGATE is a global, prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study of ENB using the superDimension™ navigation system. This prospectively collected subgroup analysis presents the patient demographics, procedural characteristics, and 1-month outcomes in patients undergoing ENB-guided FM placement. Follow up through 24 months is ongoing. Results: Two-hundred fifty-eight patients from 21 centers in the United States were included. General anesthesia was used in 68.2%. Lesion location was confirmed by radial endobronchial ultrasound in 34.5% of procedures. The median ENB procedure time was 31.0 min. Concurrent lung lesion biopsy was conducted in 82.6% (213/258) of patients. A mean of 2.2 ± 1.7 FMs (median 1.0 FMs) were placed per patient and 99.2% were accurately positioned based on subjective operator assessment. Follow-up imaging showed that 94.1% (239/254) of markers remained in place. The procedure-related pneumothorax rate was 5.4% (14/258) overall and 3.1% (8/258) grade ⩾ 2 based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale. The procedure-related grade ⩾ 4 respiratory failure rate was 1.6% (4/258). There were no bronchopulmonary hemorrhages. Conclusion: ENB is an accurate and versatile tool to place FMs for SBRT and localization for surgical resection with low complication rates. The ability to perform a biopsy safely in the same procedure can also increase efficiency. The impact of practice pattern variations on therapeutic effectiveness requires further study

Standardized Definitions of Bleeding After Transbronchial Lung Biopsy: A Delphi Consensus Statement From the Nashville Working Group.

BackgroundTransbronchial lung biopsies are commonly performed for a variety of indications. Although generally well tolerated, complications such as bleeding do occur. Description of bleeding severity is crucial both clinically and in research trials; to date, there is no validated scale that is widely accepted for this purpose. Can a simple, reproducible tool for categorizing the severity of bleeding after transbronchial biopsy be created?MethodsUsing the modified Delphi method, an international group of bronchoscopists sought to create a new scale tailored to assess bleeding severity among patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy with transbronchial lung biopsies. Cessation criteria were specified a priori and included reaching > 80% consensus among the experts or three rounds, whichever occurred first.ResultsThirty-six expert bronchoscopists from eight countries, both in academic and community practice settings, participated in the creation of the scale. After the live meeting, two iterations were made. The second and final scale was vetted by all 36 participants, with a weighted average of 4.47/5; 53% were satisfied, and 47% were very satisfied. The panel reached a consensus and proposes the Nashville Bleeding Scale.ConclusionsThe use of a simplified airway bleeding scale that can be applied at bedside is an important, necessary tool for categorizing the severity of bleeding. Uniformity in reporting clinically significant airway bleeding during bronchoscopic procedures will improve the quality of the information derived and could lead to standardization of management. In addition to transbronchial biopsies, this scale could also be applied to other bronchoscopic procedures, such as endobronchial biopsy or endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle aspiration