Navigational Bronchoscopy versus Computed Tomography-guided Transthoracic Needle Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Indeterminate Lung Nodules: protocol and rationale for the VERITAS multicenter randomized trial.

Background: Lung nodule incidence is increasing. Many nodules require biopsy to discriminate between benign and malignant etiologies. The gold-standard for minimally invasive biopsy, computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy (CT-TTNB), has never been directly compared to navigational bronchoscopy, a modality which has recently seen rapid technological innovation and is associated with improving diagnostic yield and lower complication rate. Current estimates of the diagnostic utility of both modalities are based largely on non-comparative data with significant risk for selection, referral, and publication biases. Methods: The VERITAS trial (na V igation E ndoscopy to R each Indeterminate lung nodules versus T ransthoracic needle A spiration, a randomized controlled S tudy) is a multicenter, 1:1 randomized, parallel-group trial designed to ascertain whether electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy with integrated digital tomosynthesis is noninferior to CT-TTNB for the diagnosis of peripheral lung nodules 10-30 mm in diameter with pre-test probability of malignancy of at least 10%. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy through 12 months follow-up. Secondary endpoints include diagnostic yield, complication rate, procedure duration, need for additional invasive diagnostic procedures, and radiation exposure. Discussion: The results of this rigorously designed trial will provide high-quality data regarding the management of lung nodules, a common clinical entity which often represents the earliest and most treatable stage of lung cancer. Several design challenges are described. Notably, all nodules are centrally reviewed by an independent interventional pulmonology and radiology adjudication panel relying on pre-specified exclusions to ensure enrolled nodules are amenable to sampling by both modalities while simultaneously protecting against selection bias favoring either modality. Conservative diagnostic yield and accuracy definitions with pre-specified criteria for what non-malignant findings may be considered diagnostic were chosen to avoid inflation of estimates of diagnostic utility. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04250194.

Minimal clinically important difference for chest discomfort in patients undergoing pleural interventions.

RATIONALE: Therapeutic thoracentesis is among the most frequently performed medical procedures. Chest discomfort is a common complication and has been associated with increasingly negative pleural pressure as fluid is withdrawn in the setting of non-expendable lung. Visual analogue scales (VASs) are commonly employed to measure changes in discomfort and dyspnoea related to pleural interventions. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), defined as the smallest change in VAS score associated with patient report of significant change in a symptom, is required to interpret the results of studies using VAS scores and is used in clinical trial power calculations. The MCID for chest discomfort in patients undergoing pleural interventions has not been determined. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from two recent randomised trials of therapeutic thoracentesis were used for this investigation. Adult patients with symptomatic pleural effusions referred for therapeutic thoracentesis were enrolled across ten US academic medical centres. Patients were asked to rate their level of chest discomfort on 100 mm VAS before, during and following thoracentesis. Patients then completed a 7-point Likert scale indicating the significance of any change in chest discomfort from preprocedure to postprocedure. The mean difference between discomfort 5 min postprocedure and discomfort just prior to the start of pleural fluid drainage was categorised by Likert scale response. RESULTS: Data from a total of 262 thoracenteses were included in the analysis. Thirty-four of 262 patients experienced a 'small but significant increase' or a 'large or moderate increase' in discomfort following thoracentesis. The mean increase in VAS score in those reporting a 'small but significant increase' in chest discomfort (n=23) was 16 mm (SD 22.44, 95% CI 6.87 to 25.21). CONCLUSIONS: The MCID for thoracentesis-related chest discomfort measured by 100 mm VAS is 16 mm. This MCID specific to discomfort resulting from pleural fluid interventions can inform the design and analysis of future pleural intervention studies.

The Impact of Gravity vs Suction-driven Therapeutic Thoracentesis on Pressure-related Complications: The GRAVITAS Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracentesis can be accomplished by active aspiration or drainage with gravity. This trial investigated whether gravity drainage could protect against negative pressure-related complications such as chest discomfort, re-expansion pulmonary edema, or pneumothorax compared with active aspiration. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, single-blind, randomized controlled trial allocated patients with large free-flowing effusions estimated ≥ 500 mL 1:1 to undergo active aspiration or gravity drainage. Patients rated chest discomfort on 100-mm visual analog scales prior to, during, and following drainage. Thoracentesis was halted at complete evacuation or for persistent chest discomfort, intractable cough, or other complication. The primary outcome was overall procedural chest discomfort scored 5 min following the procedure. Secondary outcomes included measures of discomfort and breathlessness through 48 h postprocedure. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were randomized to undergo treatment, with 140 in the final analysis. Groups did not differ for the primary outcome (mean visual analog scale score difference, 5.3 mm; 95% CI, -2.4 to 13.0; P = .17). Secondary outcomes of discomfort and dyspnea did not differ between groups. Comparable volumes were drained in both groups, but the procedure duration was significantly longer in the gravity arm (mean difference, 7.4 min; 95% CI, 10.2 to 4.6; P < .001). There were no serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Thoracentesis via active aspiration and gravity drainage are both safe and result in comparable levels of procedural comfort and dyspnea improvement. Active aspiration requires less total procedural time. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03591952; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Routine monitoring with pleural manometry during therapeutic large-volume thoracentesis to prevent pleural-pressure-related complications: a multicentre, single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-expandable lung, removal of pleural fluid can result in excessively negative pleural pressure, which is associated with chest discomfort, pneumothorax, and re-expansion pulmonary oedema. Pleural manometry is widely used to safeguard against pressure-related complications during thoracentesis despite little evidence to support the approach. We investigated whether monitoring of pleural pressure with manometry during thoracentesis could protect against complications compared with assessment of symptoms alone. METHODS: We did a prospective randomised single-blind trial involving patients with large pleural effusions at two academic medical centres in, Nashville, TN, and Baltimore, MD, USA. Eligible patients were adults with free-flowing effusions estimated to be at least 0·5 L who could remain seated throughout the procedure. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive thoracentesis guided by symptoms only (control) or by symptoms plus manometry at timepoints based on volume drained. The randomisation schedule was computer generated, used permuted blocks of four and six, and was stratified by participating institution. Patients, who were masked to study-group assignment, were asked to rate chest discomfort on 100 mm visual analogue scales before, during, and after drainage. In both groups drainage was discontinued before complete evacuation of pleural fluid if patients developed persistent chest discomfort, intractable cough, or other complications. In the manometry group, an additional criterion for stopping was if end-expiratory pleural pressure was lower than -20 cm H2O or declined by more than 10 cm H2O between two measurements to a value less than or equal to -10 cm H2O. The primary outcome was overall chest discomfort from before the start to after the procedure measured by patients 5 min after the end of drainage. Analysis was by modified intention to treat (ie, included all patients with any procedure or outcome data). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02677883. FINDINGS: Between March 4, 2016, and Sept 8, 2017, 191 patients were screened, of whom 128 were randomly assigned treatment and 124 were included in the final analysis (62 in each group). Four patients were excluded because of manometer malfunction (n=2), inability to access effusion due to pleural tumour burden (n=1), and inability to remain seated (n=1). Groups did not differ for the primary outcome (mean difference in chest discomfort score 2·4 mm, 95% CI -5·7 to 10·5, p=0·56). Six (10%) of 62 patients in the control group had asymptomatic pneumothorax ex vacuo compared with none in the manometry group (p=0·01). No serious complications occurred in either group. INTERPRETATION: Measurement of pleural pressure by manometry during large-volume thoracentesis does not alter procedure-related chest discomfort. Our findings do not support the routine use of this approach. FUNDING: Centurion Medical Products.