Predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy: a retrospective cohort study comparing different combinations of sampling techniques

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The reported diagnostic yield from bronchoscopies in patients with lung cancer varies greatly. The optimal combination of sampling techniques has not been finally established.</p> <p>The objectives of this study were to find the predictors of diagnostic yield in bronchoscopy and to evaluate different combinations of sampling techniques.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>All bronchoscopies performed on suspicion of lung malignancy in 2003 and 2004 were reviewed, and 363 patients with proven malignant lung disease were included in the study. Sampling techniques performed were biopsy, transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), brushing, small volume lavage (SVL), and aspiration of fluid from the entire procedure. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for sex, age, endobronchial visibility, localization (lobe), distance from carina, and tumor size.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for a positive diagnostic yield through all procedures were 17.0 (8.5–34.0) for endobronchial lesions, and 2.6 (1.3–5.2) for constriction/compression, compared to non-visible lesions; 3.8 (1.3–10.7) for lesions > 4 cm, 6.7 (2.1–21.8) for lesions 3–4 cm, and 2.5 (0.8–7.9) for lesions 2–3 cm compared with lesions <= 2 cm. The combined diagnostic yield of biopsy and TBNA was 83.7% for endobronchial lesions and 54.2% for the combined group without visible lesions. This was superior to either technique alone, whereas additional brushing, SVL, and aspiration did not significantly increase the diagnostic yield.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In patients with malignant lung disease, visible lesions and larger tumor size were significant predictors of higher diagnostic yield, after adjustment for sex, age, distance from carina, side and lobe. The combined diagnostic yield of biopsy and TBNA was significant higher than with either technique alone.</p

Escalas de risco de Torrington e Henderson e de Epstein: aplicabilidade e efetividade nas ressecções pulmonares Torrington and Henderson and Epstein risk assessment scales: applicability and effectiveness in lung resection

OBJETIVO: Comparar a incidência de complicações pulmonares e cardiopulmonares estimadas, respectivamente, pelas escalas de Torrington e Henderson e de Epstein, em amostra populacional submetida à ressecção pulmonar para tratamento de câncer de pulmão. MÉTODOS: Dados de doentes submetidos à ressecção de um lobo pulmonar ou mais foram retirados de dois bancos de dados montados de forma prospectiva, oriundos de dois hospitais terciários. As medidas de desfecho analisadas foram complicações pulmonares, cardíacas e óbito. Teste exato de Fisher foi usado para avaliar a concordância das taxas de complicações obtidas com as estimadas previamente. RESULTADOS: A escala de Torrington e Henderson foi aplicada em 50 doentes (12 apresentaram risco leve, 32 moderado e 6 grave) e subestimou a taxa de complicações pulmonares nas categorias leve e moderado (p = 0,0003 e p = 0,0006, respectivamente), porém foi capaz de reconhecer os pacientes com alto risco de desenvolver complicações. A escala de Epstein foi aplicada em 38 doentes (4 apresentaram risco alto e 34 baixo) e também subestimou a taxa de complicações cardiopulmonares pós-operatórias da categoria de risco leve, que continha a maioria dos doentes (p < 0,0001), mas reconheceu, também, os pacientes com chance alta de complicar. CONCLUSÃO: As duas escalas não foram adequadas para estimar ocorrência de complicações pulmonares e cardiopulmonares na maioria dos doentes.<br>OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidences of pulmonary and cardiopulmonary postoperative complications estimated using, respectively, the scoring systems devised by Torrington and Henderson and by Epstein in a populational sample undergoing lung resection for the treatment of lung cancer. METHODS: Prospective data from patients submitted to resection of one or more pulmonary lobes were selected from the databases of two tertiary-care hospitals. The outcome measures were pulmonary complications, cardiac complications and mortality rates. Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate the concordance between the predicted and observed complications. RESULTS: The Torrington and Henderson scoring system was applied to 50 patients, in which the risk was found to be mild in 12, moderate in 32, and high in 6. Although accurately identifying patients at high risk, the Torrington and Henderson scale underestimated the rate of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications in the mild and moderate risk categories (p = 0.0003 and p = 0.0006, respectively). The Epstein scoring system was applied to 38 patients, 4 of which were found to be at high risk, and 34 of which were found to be at mild risk. The Epstein scale also underestimated the risk in the patients (the majority) that were classified as being at mild risk (p < 0.0001) and yet, like the Torrington and Henderson scale, accurately identified those at high risk. CONCLUSION: Neither of the two scoring systems analyzed were found to be appropriate for predicting the risk of pulmonary and cardiopulmonary complications in most cases