The Diagnostic Accuracy and Sensitivity for Malignancy of Radial-Endobronchial Ultrasound and Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Sampling of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with computed tomography chest is identifying peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) suspicious for early-stage lung cancer at increasing rates. Radial-endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS) and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are 2 methods to sample PPLs to diagnose and treat early lung cancer. ENB has a higher operating financial cost, however, the rationale for its use is possible higher diagnostic accuracy versus R-EBUS. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the comparative diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and negative predictive value for R-EBUS and ENB in sampling PPLs. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The Ovid Medline database was queried for original research reporting a diagnostic yield of R-EBUS or ENB for PPLs identified on computed tomography chest suspicious for malignancy. The I statistic assessed study heterogeneity. Random effects models produced pooled estimates of diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for malignancy. Reasons for heterogeneity were explored with meta-regression. Publication bias and small study effects were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies involved 2988 lung nodules (R-EBUS 2102, ENB 886) in 3204 patients (R-EBUS 2097, ENB 1107). Overall sensitivity to detect cancer was 70.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 67.2-74.0]; R-EBUS 70.5% (95% CI: 66.1-74.8), ENB 70.7% (95% CI: 64.7-76.8). Pooled overall diagnostic accuracy was 74.2% (95% CI: 71.0-77.3); R-EBUS 72.4% (95% CI: 68.7-76.1), ENB 76.4% (95% CI: 70.8-82.0). The localization modalities had comparative safety profiles of <2% complications. CONCLUSION: Both technologies have a high proportion of successful PPL localization with similar sensitivity for malignancy and accuracy. As such, both reasonable options for health care authorities to employ diagnostic algorithms.

Digital versus analogue pleural drainage phase 1: prospective evaluation of interobserver reliability in the assessment of pulmonary air leaks.

OBJECTIVES: The ability to accurately characterize a pulmonary air leak is an essential skill in chest medicine and surgery. The objective was to evaluate interobserver variability in air leak assessments using analogue and digital pleural drainage systems. METHODS: Air leak severity in lung resection patients with a pulmonary air leak was prospectively evaluated by at least one thoracic surgeon, one surgical resident and one to two nurses using a standardized questionnaire. The first assessment was performed with pleural drains connected to an analogue system. Subsequently, patients were re-assessed after changing from the analogue to a digital drainage system. The thoracic surgeon's evaluation was considered the reference standard for comparison. Agreement between observers was quantified using the kappa (κ) statistic. RESULTS: A total of 128 air leak evaluations were completed in 30 patients (thoracic surgeon = 30; nurses = 56; resident = 30; physiotherapists = 12). The mean time between analogue and digital assessment was 2.16 (±1.66) h. The level of observer agreement regarding air leak severity significantly increased from very slight to substantial when using the digital drainage system [analogue κ = 0.03; confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.11; P = 0.40) (digital κ = 0.61; CI: 0.49-0.73; P < 0.01]. Similar improvements were observed in subgroups of health-care professionals using digital technology. CONCLUSIONS: Digital pleural drainage technology improves the agreement level between members of the health-care team when assessing the severity of a pulmonary air leak after lung resection.