Transbronchial vs transesophageal needle aspiration using an ultrasound bronchoscope for the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions: A randomized study

BACKGROUND: Th e purpose of this study was to compare the tolerance, effi cacy, and safety of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) with transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fi ne-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with an endobronchial ultrasound scope for the first pathologic diagnosis of lesions accessible by both procedures. METHODS: Patients who had lesions accessible by both EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA were enrolled and were randomized to undergo either procedure. Patients quantifi ed tolerance, and operators charted the quality of examination using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: A specifi c diagnosis was made in 50 of 55 patients (91%) in the EBUS-TBNA group and in 48 of 55 patients (87%) in the EUS-FNA group ( P 5 .76). Compared with EBUS-TBNA, EUS-FNA was associated with a shorter duration of procedure (median, 15.3 min vs 11.3 min; P , .001), lower doses of IV midazolam (mean, 4.4 mg vs 4 mg; P 5 .02) and intraairway lidocaine (mean, 303 mg vs 189 mg; P , .001), less frequent oxygen desaturations (23 of 55 vs two of 55, P , .001), and higher operator satisfaction (P , .001). Th ere was no signifi cant diff erence in patient tolerance according to the patients' VAS. Lymph node infection occurred in one patient in the EBUS-TBNA group and in two patients in the EUS-FNA group. CONCLUSIONS: Both EBUS-TBNA and EUS-FNA provide high accuracy with good tolerance, although the occurrence of infectious complications should be monitored carefully. EUS-FNA has the advantage of comparable tolerance with fewer doses of anesthetics and sedatives, a shorter procedure time, and fewer oxygen desaturations during the procedure. TRIAL REGISTRY: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000005757; URL: http://www. umin.ac.jp/ctr/.