鼻腔与口腔途径 EBUS-TBNA 患者手术耐受性的比较:NO-EBUS随机临床试验。

IF 3.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Mayank Mishra, Nilotpal Chowdhury, Ajeesh Krishnadas Padmanabhan, Saikat Banerjee, Lokesh Kumar Saini, Prakhar Sharma, Shruti Agrawal, Girish Sindhwani
{"title":"鼻腔与口腔途径 EBUS-TBNA 患者手术耐受性的比较:NO-EBUS随机临床试验。","authors":"Mayank Mishra, Nilotpal Chowdhury, Ajeesh Krishnadas Padmanabhan, Saikat Banerjee, Lokesh Kumar Saini, Prakhar Sharma, Shruti Agrawal, Girish Sindhwani","doi":"10.1097/LBR.0000000000000960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nasal route for EBUS-TBNA could be considered where it is feasible and preferable for the patient as well as the operator.</p>","PeriodicalId":15268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","volume":" ","pages":"215-223"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Patient's Procedural Tolerance of EBUS-TBNA Performed Through Nasal Versus Oral Route: The NO-EBUS Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Mayank Mishra, Nilotpal Chowdhury, Ajeesh Krishnadas Padmanabhan, Saikat Banerjee, Lokesh Kumar Saini, Prakhar Sharma, Shruti Agrawal, Girish Sindhwani\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/LBR.0000000000000960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nasal route for EBUS-TBNA could be considered where it is feasible and preferable for the patient as well as the operator.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15268,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"215-223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000960\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000960","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:支气管内超声引导下经支气管针吸术(EBUS-TBNA)是支气管镜医师评估纵隔病变的常用方法。然而,直接比较鼻腔和口腔途径以指导选择最佳插入途径的证据并不多:在这项前瞻性、平行组、开放标签的随机临床试验中,在有意识镇静状态下接受线性 EBUS-TBNA 检查的成人被随机分配到通过鼻腔或口腔途径进行手术。主要目的是评估两组受试者对 EBUS-TBNA 手术耐受性的等效性。主要次要目标是评估受试者评定的总体体验、重复手术意愿、操作者评定的受试者耐受性和操作者评定的手术难易程度是否相同:180名受试者按1:1的比例随机分配到鼻腔组(98人)或口腔组(82人)。结果通过每方案(PP)和意向治疗(ITT)分析进行评估。结果发现,两组受试者对手术的耐受性、总体满意度和操作者对手术的轻松程度相当(PC结论:EBUS治疗鼻腔穿刺术的鼻腔途径和口腔途径是最佳选择:在可行且对患者和操作者都有利的情况下,可以考虑采用鼻腔途径进行 EBUS-TBNA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Patient's Procedural Tolerance of EBUS-TBNA Performed Through Nasal Versus Oral Route: The NO-EBUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
121
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信