Qi Qi, Wanqin Fang, Linhui Yang, Yi Liu, Rui Xu, Dan Liu
{"title":"桡骨支气管内超声与电磁或虚拟支气管镜导航联合诊断周围肺病变的性能和安全性比较：一项回顾性研究。","authors":"Qi Qi, Wanqin Fang, Linhui Yang, Yi Liu, Rui Xu, Dan Liu","doi":"10.1177/17534666251355130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS), virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN), and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are widely used bronchoscopic techniques for diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). However, the applications of their combinations remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance and safety of R-EBUS versus its combination with ENB or VBN and lesion characteristics.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study is a retrospective, single-center cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent R-EBUS without and with ENB or VBN (R-EBUS+ENB, R-EBUS+VBN) for peripheral pulmonary. Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and complications were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for baseline difference adjustment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups had diagnostic yields of 74.6%, 78.2%, and 73.0%, respectively (no significant differences after IPTW adjustment). Multimodal approaches significantly improved diagnostic yield in patients with emphysematous lungs (R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+ENB: odds ratio (OR): 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-8.95; <i>p</i> = 0.009; R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+VBN: OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.05-9.35; <i>p</i> = 0.04). R-EBUS+ENB demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in lesions ⩽20 mm (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.28-9.98; <i>p</i> = 0.015), lesions with positive bronchial signs (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.07-3.67; <i>p</i> = 0.029), and solid lesions with combined positive bronchial signs (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.18-6.07; <i>p</i> = 0.019). Mild bleeding was more frequent in the R-EBUS+ENB group than in the R-EBUS group (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.13-9.13; <i>p</i> = 0.029); severe complications did not significantly differ among groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparable diagnostic performances were observed among R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups. Multimodal approaches significantly enhanced diagnostic accuracy in subtypes with lesions of small size, positive bronchial signs, or emphysematous lungs. These findings highlight the importance of tailored multimodal strategies to improve diagnostic yield and procedural safety in PPL evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":22884,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","volume":"19 ","pages":"17534666251355130"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12256742/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative diagnostic performance and safety of radial endobronchial ultrasound versus its combination with electromagnetic or virtual bronchoscopic navigation for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Qi Qi, Wanqin Fang, Linhui Yang, Yi Liu, Rui Xu, Dan Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17534666251355130\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Radial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS), virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN), and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are widely used bronchoscopic techniques for diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). However, the applications of their combinations remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance and safety of R-EBUS versus its combination with ENB or VBN and lesion characteristics.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study is a retrospective, single-center cohort study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients who underwent R-EBUS without and with ENB or VBN (R-EBUS+ENB, R-EBUS+VBN) for peripheral pulmonary. Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and complications were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for baseline difference adjustment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups had diagnostic yields of 74.6%, 78.2%, and 73.0%, respectively (no significant differences after IPTW adjustment). Multimodal approaches significantly improved diagnostic yield in patients with emphysematous lungs (R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+ENB: odds ratio (OR): 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-8.95; <i>p</i> = 0.009; R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+VBN: OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.05-9.35; <i>p</i> = 0.04). R-EBUS+ENB demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in lesions ⩽20 mm (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.28-9.98; <i>p</i> = 0.015), lesions with positive bronchial signs (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.07-3.67; <i>p</i> = 0.029), and solid lesions with combined positive bronchial signs (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.18-6.07; <i>p</i> = 0.019). Mild bleeding was more frequent in the R-EBUS+ENB group than in the R-EBUS group (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.13-9.13; <i>p</i> = 0.029); severe complications did not significantly differ among groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Comparable diagnostic performances were observed among R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups. Multimodal approaches significantly enhanced diagnostic accuracy in subtypes with lesions of small size, positive bronchial signs, or emphysematous lungs. These findings highlight the importance of tailored multimodal strategies to improve diagnostic yield and procedural safety in PPL evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22884,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"volume\":\"19 \",\"pages\":\"17534666251355130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12256742/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666251355130\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17534666251355130","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative diagnostic performance and safety of radial endobronchial ultrasound versus its combination with electromagnetic or virtual bronchoscopic navigation for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a retrospective study.
Background: Radial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS), virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN), and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are widely used bronchoscopic techniques for diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). However, the applications of their combinations remain unclear.
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance and safety of R-EBUS versus its combination with ENB or VBN and lesion characteristics.
Design: This study is a retrospective, single-center cohort study.
Methods: Patients who underwent R-EBUS without and with ENB or VBN (R-EBUS+ENB, R-EBUS+VBN) for peripheral pulmonary. Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and complications were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for baseline difference adjustment.
Results: R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups had diagnostic yields of 74.6%, 78.2%, and 73.0%, respectively (no significant differences after IPTW adjustment). Multimodal approaches significantly improved diagnostic yield in patients with emphysematous lungs (R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+ENB: odds ratio (OR): 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-8.95; p = 0.009; R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+VBN: OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.05-9.35; p = 0.04). R-EBUS+ENB demonstrated superior diagnostic performance in lesions ⩽20 mm (OR: 3.58; 95% CI: 1.28-9.98; p = 0.015), lesions with positive bronchial signs (OR: 1.98; 95% CI: 1.07-3.67; p = 0.029), and solid lesions with combined positive bronchial signs (OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.18-6.07; p = 0.019). Mild bleeding was more frequent in the R-EBUS+ENB group than in the R-EBUS group (OR: 3.21; 95% CI: 1.13-9.13; p = 0.029); severe complications did not significantly differ among groups.
Conclusion: Comparable diagnostic performances were observed among R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups. Multimodal approaches significantly enhanced diagnostic accuracy in subtypes with lesions of small size, positive bronchial signs, or emphysematous lungs. These findings highlight the importance of tailored multimodal strategies to improve diagnostic yield and procedural safety in PPL evaluation.
期刊介绍：
Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies across all areas of respiratory disease.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
