Use of an Ultrathin vs Thin Bronchoscope for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions

Background

When evaluating peripheral pulmonary lesions, a 3.0-mm ultrathin bronchoscope (UTB) with a 1.7-mm working channel is advantageous regarding good access to the peripheral airway, whereas a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope provides a larger 2.0-mm working channel, which allows the use of various instruments including a guide sheath (GS), larger forceps, and an aspiration needle. This study compared multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB and a thin bronchoscope with multiple sampling methods for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions.

Methods

Patients with peripheral pulmonary lesions ≤ 30 mm in diameter were recruited and randomized to undergo endobronchial ultrasonography, virtual bronchoscopy, and fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy using a 3.0-mm UTB (UTB group) or a 4.0-mm thin bronchoscope (thin bronchoscope group). In the thin bronchoscope group, the use of small forceps with a GS or standard forceps without the GS was permitted. In addition, needle aspiration was performed for lesions into which an ultrasound probe could not be inserted.

Results

A total of 360 patients were enrolled, and 356 were included in the analyses (median largest lesional diameter, 19 mm). The overall diagnostic yield was significantly higher in the UTB group than in the thin bronchoscope group (70.1% vs 58.7%, respectively; P = .027). The procedure duration was significantly shorter in the UTB group (median, 24.8 vs 26.8 min, respectively; P = .008). The complication rates were 2.8% and 4.5%, respectively (P = .574).

Conclusions

Multimodal bronchoscopy using a UTB afforded a higher diagnostic yield than that using a thin bronchoscope in the diagnosis of small peripheral pulmonary lesions.

Trial Registry

UMIN Clinical Trials Registry; No.: UMIN000010133; URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/