4.4 Article

Training in and Experience with Endobronchial Ultrasound

Journal

RESPIRATION
Volume 88, Issue 6, Pages 478-483

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000368366

Keywords

Adequate specimen sampling; Endobronchial ultrasound; Lymphadenopathy; Procedural yield; Transbronchial needle aspiration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Diagnosing mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy and staging lung cancer with endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) are on the rise, but uncertainty surrounds the optimal number of cases needed to achieve acceptable yields. Objectives: To determine the threshold at which EBUS-TBNA reaches adequate yields among trainees and skilled bronchoscopists. Methods: We reviewed all EBUS-TBNAs performed at our medical center since implementing the use of EBUS (n = 222). Results: EBUS-TBNAs were performed in 222 patients (344 nodes). The percentage of adequate specimens sampled (diagnostic specimens or nodal tissue) rose from 66% in 2008 to 90% in 2012 (p < 0.01) and cancer yield improved from 34% in 2008 to 48% in 2012 (p < 0.01). Attending physicians who performed an average of more than 10 procedures per year had higher yields compared to those who performed fewer than 10 procedures per year (86 vs. 68%, p < 0.01). The yield of trainees also improved with every 10 procedures (79, 90 and 95%, p < 0.001) and that of attending physicians with experience (1-25 procedures: 78% yield, 26-50 procedures: 87% yield and 50+ procedures: 90% yield; p < 0.01). Among trainees, failure rates declined steadily. Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA yield (malignant and benign) increases with increasing experience amongst experienced bronchoscopists and trainees as early as the first 20-25 procedures. Pulmonary trainees had a rapid decline in failure rates. These findings suggest that in an academic environment a minimum of 20-25 procedures is needed to achieve acceptable yields. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available