Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2018
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the economically disadvantaged: A retrospective analysis of 1582 individuals.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
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.
Prasad Kuruswamy Thurai, Dhooria Sahajal, Sehgal Inderpaul Singh, Muthu Valliappan, Ram Babu, Gupta Nalini, Aggarwal Ashutosh Nath, Agarwal Ritesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Whether the indications and diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) vary according to the socioeconomic status of the patient, remains unknown. Herein, we evaluate this aspect in participants who underwent EBUS-TBNA.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of all participants who underwent EBUS-TBNA for the evaluation of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy. We evaluated the indications and outcome of EBUS-TBNA in participants with and without economic disadvantage (issuance of a below poverty line card by the government).
RESULTS: Of the EUBUS procedures performed on 1582 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 46.1 [15.7] years; 593 [37.5%] women) performed during the study, 61 (3.9%) were done in the economically disadvantaged (ED) group. Individuals in the ED group were younger (median age, 40 vs. 46 years; P = 0.002) and more likely to have tuberculosis (42.6% vs. 26.2%, P = 0.005) or malignancy (39.3% vs. 26.9%, P = 0.032) as a presumptive diagnosis. The overall diagnostic yield of EBUS was 63% and was significantly lower in the ED group (49.2% vs. 63.5%, P = 0.023). Previously used EBUS-TBNA needles were more commonly employed in the ED participants (62.7% vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger age, larger size, and number of nodes sampled, and the use of new (versus reused) needles were independent predictors of higher diagnostic yield. There was no difference in the complication rate between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic yield of EBUS was significantly lower in the ED participants, which is due to the differences in the clinical and procedural characteristics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of all participants who underwent EBUS-TBNA for the evaluation of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy. We evaluated the indications and outcome of EBUS-TBNA in participants with and without economic disadvantage (issuance of a below poverty line card by the government).
RESULTS: Of the EUBUS procedures performed on 1582 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 46.1 [15.7] years; 593 [37.5%] women) performed during the study, 61 (3.9%) were done in the economically disadvantaged (ED) group. Individuals in the ED group were younger (median age, 40 vs. 46 years; P = 0.002) and more likely to have tuberculosis (42.6% vs. 26.2%, P = 0.005) or malignancy (39.3% vs. 26.9%, P = 0.032) as a presumptive diagnosis. The overall diagnostic yield of EBUS was 63% and was significantly lower in the ED group (49.2% vs. 63.5%, P = 0.023). Previously used EBUS-TBNA needles were more commonly employed in the ED participants (62.7% vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, younger age, larger size, and number of nodes sampled, and the use of new (versus reused) needles were independent predictors of higher diagnostic yield. There was no difference in the complication rate between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic yield of EBUS was significantly lower in the ED participants, which is due to the differences in the clinical and procedural characteristics.