Background
Until now, the pathological diagnosis of a peripheral lung lesion was usually made by transthoracic needle biopsy, surgical resection, or bronchoscopy; however, transbronchial lung biopsy using conventional bronchoscopy has a low diagnostic yield [
1]. Technological advances have developed peripheral bronchoscopy as a useful and minimally invasive procedure [
2‐
4]. Moreover, the diagnostic yield of peripheral bronchoscopy has been greatly improved by a combined modality consisting of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound and a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) [
5].
Based on the results of previous studies, EBUS-GS for peripheral lung lesions is considered a relatively safe procedure with an acceptable diagnostic yield [
6,
7]. Given its widespread use, complications might be expected, particularly when the procedure is performed by inexperienced physicians. Previous meta-analyses determined an overall complication rate between 0 and 7.4%, but zero mortality [
6,
7]. In a recent large-scale study of 965 patients, the rates of iatrogenic pneumothorax, pneumothorax requiring chest tube drainage, and pulmonary infection was 0.8%, 0.3%, and 0.5%, respectively, which were markedly lower than the rate related to transthoracic needle biopsy [
1,
8,
9]. Breakage of the radial probe during EBUS occurred in 0.4% of the patients. However, there are no clinical data regarding the diagnostic yields, learning curve, and safety profile for procedures performed by inexperienced physicians. Thus, using a prospectively collected database, we determined the learning curve and safety profile of EBUS-GS when performed by beginners. We also analyzed the durability of the radial probe and GS in those procedures.
Discussion
This study demonstrated that EBUS-GS is a useful and safe procedure, even when performed by inexperienced physicians. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report in which the diagnostic yields, learning curve, and safety profile of EBUS-GS during the learning phase were evaluated. We found that EBUS-GS performed by beginners resulted in diagnostic yields comparable to those of experienced physicians [
5,
6,
16,
17]. Moreover, the overall complication rate of EBUS-GS in this study was 1.5%, which was not significantly different from the complication rate of 1.3% recorded in a previous study involving 965 peripheral lung lesions [
9].
The diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS when performed without any assistance from navigation modalities has been previously reported to be 69.2–77.3% [
5,
18]. In this study, the overall diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS performed by beginners was 73.0%. Our results suggest that the accuracy of EBUS-GS does not greatly differ between beginners and experts. In addition, the learning curve analyses showed that the diagnostic yields were stable, even when the procedure was performed by a beginner. Because the diagnostic yields of EBUS-GS are generally a function of the size of the lung lesion [
2,
5], we used a CUSUM analysis to assess the two physicians in their diagnostic yields of patients with lung lesions < 30 mm. Our results suggest that EBUS-GS is a stable procedure even when performed by beginners examining small lung lesions.
Interestingly, the graphs of the two physicians crossed the lower decision boundary, indicating that the diagnostic yield improved over time in the analysis of all study subjects (Fig.
1a and
b). However, in the CUSUM analysis of the 50 consecutive patients with peripheral lung lesions < 30 mm, the curve of the two physicians remained between the lower and upper decision boundaries (Fig.
1c and
d). Therefore, it is expected that the diagnostic yield of EBUS-GS for peripheral lung lesions ≥30 mm improved over time, whereas the diagnostic yield for peripheral lung lesions < 30 mm was stable. From our results, we deduced that larger lesions were associated with early achievement of competence as well as a higher diagnostic yield [
3].
A previous meta-analysis of EBUS-GS reported that pooled rates of any pneumothorax or pneumothorax requiring intercostal catheter drainage are 1% and 0.4%, respectively [
7]. These low incidences of pneumothorax are an important advantage of EBUS-GS compared to the relatively high incidence of pneumothorax after transthoracic needle biopsy [
1,
8,
19]. In our study, the incidence of pneumothorax was 1%, and no patient required the placement of a chest tube for the management of a pneumothorax. These results suggest that even when EBUS-GS is performed by a beginner, the incidence of pneumothorax is much lower than the pneumothorax rate after transthoracic needle aspiration [
20]. Pulmonary infection after EBUS-GS is a rare complication, with a risk for 0.5% according to a previous study [
9]; the rate was the same in this study. Until now, there has been no clinical guideline or consensus statement regarding prophylactic antibiotics for patients undergoing EBUS-GS. However, the incidence of pulmonary infection in our patients after EBUS-GS was, fortunately low, even when the procedure was performed during the learning phase. In another meta-analysis, respiratory failure after EBUS-GS only occurred in 1 in 2156 patients [
6]. In addition, no case of severe hemorrhage or procedure-related deaths have been reported in any of the studies [
7,
21,
22]. Likewise, in this study there were no fatal complications, including respiratory failure.
Moreover, we also found that the durability of the radial probe EBUS and GS were tolerable during the learning phase of EBUS-GS. The vulnerability of the radial probe EBUS is well known, and the probe can be used during 50–100 EBUS-GS procedures [
18]. In this study, two probes were used by the two physicians, for 100 EBUS-GS procedures each. During that time, one radial probe EBUS broke, but the damage rate was not higher in the EBUS procedures performed by two beginners in this study than that reported elsewhere [
18]. In the single case of GS breakage, the two long axes of the bronchoscope and GS were discordant such that the GS bent due to the application of pressure vertical along its long axis (Fig.
4). This situation might have evolved due to the inexperience of the physician. To prevent breakage of the GS, the bronchoscope should be introduced as close as possible to the target lesion.
There were several limitations to our study. First, it was retrospective and conducted at a single center. Although the data were prospectively collected, potential selection bias might have influenced our results. In particular, the proportion of “within the lesion” on the endobronchial ultrasound image and malignant disease in the clinical diagnosis was relatively high in the present study. Previous studies have reported that factors contributing to successful EBUS-GS are “within the lesion” on sonography, a higher proportion of malignant disease in all subjects, and lesion size [
5,
21,
23]. We acknowledge possible selective recruitment of patients with a clear bronchus sign on a CT scan; consequently, the proportion of “within” images on endobronchial sonographic images could have increased. The diagnostic yield was well maintained from the beginning of EBUS-GS due to potentially biased selection of patients with the bronchus sign as well as those with malignant disease. Our results suggest that EBUS-GS is a safe, stable, and reproducible procedure, even if performed by beginners, if patient selection is based on the presence of the bronchus sign on a CT scan and a high probability of malignant disease. Second, a navigation system, such as electromagnetic navigation or virtual bronchoscopic navigation, was not used during EBUS-GS. Recent studies have demonstrated that a combined modality made of a navigation system and radial probe EBUS provides a higher diagnostic yield than obtained when each modality is used separately [
18,
21]. However, a navigation system is an expensive medical resource and is not available at all of the hospitals. Third, the performance of only two physicians, as beginners in the use of EBUS-GS, was analyzed in this study, which prevents generalization of the results. To verify our findings, a large-scale prospective study of a large-number of beginners of the procedure is needed.