Per-Esophageal Needle Aspiration of Parenchymal Lung Lesions and Mediastinal Lymph Nodes Using an Endobronchial Ultrasound Bronchoscope.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using a bronchoscope (EUS-B-FNA) allows clinicians to determine mediastinal staging and lung mass evaluation of lesions not accessible by endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) or where endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration might not be safe. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, diagnostic accuracy, and feasibility of EUS-B-FNA. METHODS: The study comprised patients who underwent a pulmonologist-performed EUS-B-FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes and parenchymal lung lesions between June 2015 and September 2017 at the Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel. RESULTS: EUS-B-FNA was performed in 81 patients. The transesophageal procedure was performed for easier accessibility (49.4%) and in high-risk patients (43.3%). The most frequently sampled mediastinal stations were left paratracheal and sub-carinal lymph nodes or masses (38.3% and 56.7%, respectively). There were no complications (e.g., acute respiratory distress, esophageal perforation, or bleeding). An accurate diagnosis was determined in 91.3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonologist-performed EUS-B-FNA is safe and accurate for evaluating mediastinal and parenchymal lung lesions and lymphadenopathy. Diagnostic accuracy is high. EUS-B-FNA may allow access to sites not amenable to other forms of bronchoscopic sampling, or may increase diagnostic accuracy in patients where anatomic position predicts a low diagnostic yield.

Circulating eosinophil levels do not predict severe exacerbations in COPD: a retrospective study.

Whether the level of circulating eosinophils in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients can predict the risk of exacerbations of COPD (ECOPD) or response to treatment is debated. Here, we evaluate the prevalence of elevated eosinophils in COPD patients and its relationship with severe ECOPD requiring hospitalisation. We retrospectively reviewed the charts of COPD patients hospitalised in our centre between January 1, 2005 and November 30, 2015 because of ECOPD or other reasons (controls). In a second analysis, the ECOPD patients were divided into two subgroups based on having ECOPD in the next year after the index event or not. Circulating eosinophils, both during clinical stability and hospitalisation, as well as clinical and functional data and the relation to recurrent exacerbations were analysed. We studied 992 COPD patients (318 ECOPD patients and 674 controls). Among ECOPD patients, 121 had one or more ECOPD during the year after the index event. The prevalence of eosinophils ≥2% was 72% in ECOPD patients and 71% in controls (p=0.93). Among ECOPD patients, eosinophil levels ≥2%, ≥4% or ≥300 cells·µL-1, either when clinically stable or during hospitalisation, did not show a significant association with the rate of recurrent severe exacerbations. The severity of airflow limitation was associated with recurrent exacerbations, but inhaled corticosteroid treatment was not. The majority of COPD patients have circulating eosinophils >2% and a significant association with the risk of severe ECOPD or response to inhaled corticosteroids was not demonstrated.