Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a frequently used method for obtaining tissue samples for the diagnosis of various respiratory conditions, including lung cancer staging. In most cases, EBUS-TBNA is performed under moderate sedation (MS). However, in cases of respiratory compromised patients, if this procedure is performed, it is conducted under general anesthesia (GA).

Objective: To assess the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA among respiratory compromised patients.

Methods: Data of consecutive patients (n=191) who underwent EBUS-TBNA at our medical center between January 2019 and December 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Respiratory compromised patients underwent GA and patients without respiratory compromise were mostly moderately sedated (MS). Characteristics, diagnostic yield, and complication rates were compared.

Results: Diagnostic yield was similar between the two sedation modes (89% in GA group and 78% in the MS group, P = 0.11). The number of total samples obtained per procedure was significantly higher in the GA vs. the MS group (4.1 ± 2.1 vs. 2.1 ± 1.33, P < 0.01). The overall complication rate was 13% and 20.9% in the GA vs. the MS groups, respectively (P = 0.14), with the most frequent complication being minor bleeding. Interestingly, while the number of brushings, bronchoalveolar lavage, and endobronchial biopsy were similar, the percent of subjects who underwent transbronchial biopsy was significantly higher in the GA group (49% vs. 24.2%, P < 0.01).

Conclusion: EBUS-TBNA performed under GA among respiratory compromised patients is safe and has similar diagnostic yield to that of patients without a respiratory compromise

Background: Pulmonary rehabilitation has shown significant benefit for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The effect on non-COPD pulmonary patients is less well established.

Objectives: To determine whether pulmonary rehabilitation is also beneficial for non-COPD pulmonary patients.

Methods: Clinical and demographic data on non-COPD pulmonary patients who participated in our institutional pulmonary rehabilitation program between January 2009 and December 2016 were collected. Participants engaged in a 60-minute, twice-weekly, ambulatory hospital-based program lasting 12 to 24 sessions. Sessions included both endurance and muscle training as well as healthy lifestyle educational activities. The six-minute walk test (6MWT) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were conducted before and after the rehabilitation program.

Result: We recruited 214 non-COPD patients, of whom 153 completed at least 12 sessions. Of these, 59 presented with interstitial lung disease (ILD), 18 with non-ILD restrictive lung defects, 25 with asthma, 30 with lung cancer, and 21 with other conditions (e.g., pulmonary hypertension, bronchiectasis) The groups demonstrated significant improvement in 6MWT and in SGRQ scores. Non-COPD patients gained a 61.9 meter (19%) improvement in the 6MWT (P < 0.0001) and 8.3 point reduction in their SGRQ score (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Pulmonary rehabilitation is effective in non-COPD pulmonary patients. As such, it should be an integral part of the treatment armament provided to the vast majority of those suffering from chronic respiratory disease.