MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/lbr.0000000000000960

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of bronchology & interventional pulmonology · 2024

Comparison of Patient's Procedural Tolerance of EBUS-TBNA Performed Through Nasal Versus Oral Route: The NO-EBUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Mishra Mayank, Chowdhury Nilotpal, Krishnadas Padmanabhan Ajeesh, Banerjee Saikat, Kumar Saini Lokesh, Sharma Prakhar, Agrawal Shruti, Sindhwani Girish

Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяEquivalence TrialПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a commonly performed procedure by the bronchoscopist for the evaluation of mediastinal lesions. However, evidence directly comparing the nasal and oral routes to guide the choice of an optimal insertion approach is scanty.

METHODS

In this prospective, parallel-group, open-label randomized clinical trial, adults posted for a linear EBUS-TBNA examination under conscious sedation were randomized to undergo the procedure via the nasal or oral route. The primary objective was to assess the equivalence of subject-rated tolerance of EBUS-TBNA procedure in the 2 groups. Key secondary objectives were to assess the equivalence of subject-rated overall experience, willingness for a repeat procedure, operator-rated subject's tolerance, and operator-rated ease of performing the procedure.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the nasal (n=98) or oral (n=82) group. Outcome measures were assessed by both per-protocol (PP) and intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Subject-rated procedural tolerance, overall satisfaction and operator's ease of performing the procedure were found to be equivalent in the 2 groups ( P <0.05 in all cases for PP and ITT analysis). The operator-rated subject's tolerance was, however, nonequivalent ( P =0.0596, 0.1286 for PP and ITT, respectively). Subject's willingness to undergo a repeat procedure was similar in both groups [90% CI of difference in proportions: (-0.023, 0.121) in PP and (-0.028, 0.115) in ITT analysis].

CONCLUSION

Nasal route for EBUS-TBNA could be considered where it is feasible and preferable for the patient as well as the operator.

Для цитирования: Mishra Mayank, Chowdhury Nilotpal, Krishnadas Padmanabhan Ajeesh, Banerjee Saikat, Kumar Saini Lokesh, Sharma Prakhar, Agrawal Shruti, Sindhwani Girish. Comparison of Patient's Procedural Tolerance of EBUS-TBNA Performed Through Nasal Versus Oral Route: The NO-EBUS Randomized Clinical Trial.. Journal of bronchology & interventional pulmonology. 2024. DOI: 10.1097/lbr.0000000000000960.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.