The role of sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Systematic review

Pantaree Aswanetmanee, Chok Limsuwat, Mohamad Kabach, Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, Fayez Kheir, Pantaree Aswanetmanee, Chok Limsuwat, Mohamad Kabach, Abdul Hamid Alraiyes, Fayez Kheir

Abstract

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive procedure that has become an important tool in diagnosis and staging of mediastinal lymph node (LN) lesions in lung cancer. Adequate sedation is an important part of the procedure since it provides patient's comfort and potentially increases diagnostic yield. We aimed to compare deep sedation (DS) versus moderate sedation (MS) in patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA procedure.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched for English studies of clinical trials comparing the two different methods of sedations in EBUS-TBNA until December 2015. The overall diagnostic yield, LN size sampling, procedural time, complication, and safety were evaluated.

Results: Six studies with 3000 patients which compared two different modalities of sedation in patients performing EBUS-TBNA were included in the study. The overall diagnostic yield of DS method was 52.3%-100% and MS method was 46.1%-85.7%. The overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA of DS method was 98.15%-100% as compared with 80%-98.08% in MS method. The overall procedural times were 27.2-50.9 min and 20.6-44.1 min in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of LN sampled were between 1.33-3.20 nodes and 1.36-2.80 nodes in DS and MS groups, respectively. The numbers of passes per LN were 3.21-3.70 passes in DS group as compared to 2.73-3.00 passes in MS group. The mean of LN size was indifferent between two groups. None of the studies included reported serious adverse events.

Conclusions: Using MS in EBUS-TBNA has comparable diagnostic yield and safety profile to DS. The decision on the method of sedation for EBUS-TBNA should be individually selected based on operator experience, patient preference, as well as duration of the anticipated procedure.

Keywords: Endobronchial ultrasound; sedation; transbronchial needle aspiration.

References

    1. Yasufuku K, Chiyo M, Sekine Y, et al. Real-time endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Chest. 2004;126:122–8.
    1. Ernst A, Anantham D, Eberhardt R, et al. Diagnosis of mediastinal adenopathy-real-time endobronchial ultrasound guided needle aspiration versus mediastinoscopy. J Thorac Oncol. 2008;3:577–82.
    1. Clarkson K, Power CK, O’Connell F, et al. A comparative evaluation of propofol and midazolam as sedative agents in fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Chest. 1993;104:1029–31.
    1. Rex DK, Overley C, Kinser K, et al. Safety of propofol administered by registered nurses with gastroenterologist supervision in 2000 endoscopic cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1159–63.
    1. McKeage K, Perry CM. Propofol: A review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults. CNS Drugs. 2003;17:235–72.
    1. Fragen RJ. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam given via continuous intravenous infusion in intensive care units. Clin Ther. 1997;19:405–19.
    1. Rayburn WF, Smith CV, Parriott JE, et al. Randomized comparison of meperidine and fentanyl during labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:604–6.
    1. Mostert JW, Trudnowski RJ, Seniff AM, et al. Clinical comparison of fentanyl with meperidine. J Clin Pharmacol J New Drugs. 1968;8:382–91.
    1. Flacke JW, Flacke WE, Bloor BC, et al. Histamine release by four narcotics: A double-blind study in humans. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:723–30.
    1. Mather LE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and its newer derivatives. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1983;8:422–46.
    1. Robertson DJ, Jacobs DP, Mackenzie TA, et al. Clinical trial: A randomized, study comparing meperidine (pethidine) and fentanyl in adult gastrointestinal endoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29:817–23.
    1. Ali S, Davidson DL, Gremse DA. Comparison of fentanyl versus meperidine for analgesia in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy. Dig Dis Sci. 2004;49:888–91.
    1. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Sedation and Analgesia by Non-Anesthesiologists. Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia by non-anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:1004–17.
    1. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:401–6.
    1. Dal T, Sazak H, Tunç M, et al. A comparison of ketamine-midazolam and ketamine-propofol combinations used for sedation in the endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A prospective, single-blind, randomized study. J Thorac Dis. 2014;6:742–51.
    1. Lee HJ, Haas AR, Sterman DH, et al. Pilot randomized study comparing two techniques of airway anaesthesia during curvilinear probe endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (CP-EBUS) Respirology. 2011;16:102–6.
    1. Goyal G, Pisani MA, Murphy TE, et al. Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy using conscious sedation and the laryngeal nerve block: Tolerability, thoroughness, and diagnostic yield. Lung. 2014;192:905–13.
    1. Chrissian AA, Bedi H. Bronchoscopist-directed continuous propofol infusion for targeting moderate sedation during endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy: A practical and effective protocol. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2015;22:226–36.
    1. Ando K, Ohkuni Y, Fukazawa M, et al. Sedation with meperidine for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2010;17:329–33.
    1. Ost DE, Ernst A, Lei X, et al. Diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Results of the AQuIRE bronchoscopy registry. Chest. 2011;140:1557–66.
    1. Yarmus LB, Akulian JA, Gilbert C, et al. Comparison of moderate versus deep sedation for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013;10:121–6.
    1. Eapen GA, Shah AM, Lei X, et al. Complications, consequences, and practice patterns of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Results of the AQuIRE registry. Chest. 2013;143:1044–53.
    1. Casal RF, Lazarus DR, Kuhl K, et al. Randomized trial of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration under general anesthesia versus moderate sedation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191:796–803.
    1. Öztas S, Aktürk ÜA, Alpay LA, et al. A comparison of propofol-midazolam and midazolam alone for sedation in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A retrospective cohort study. Clin Respir J. 2015
    1. Hagmeyer KO, Mauro LS, Mauro VF. Meperidine-related seizures associated with patient-controlled analgesia pumps. Ann Pharmacother. 1993;27:29–32.
    1. Stone PA, Macintyre PE, Jarvis DA. Norpethidine toxicity and patient controlled analgesia. Br J Anaesth. 1993;71:738–40.
    1. José RJ, Shaefi S, Navani N. Sedation for flexible bronchoscopy: Current and emerging evidence. Eur Respir Rev. 2013;22:106–16.
    1. Wahidi MM, Sterman DH. Bringing comfort to endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;191:727–8.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다