Meta-analysis of 21- Versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-Guided transbronchial needle aspiration

Smith Giri, Ranjan Pathak, Vivek Yarlagadda, Paras Karmacharya, Madan R. Aryal, Michael Martin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Two different needle gauges (21 and 22 G) are currently used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TB107NA using 21 versus 22 G needles. We aimed to systematically analyze all existing literature comparing the diagnostic benefit of these 2 needles. Methods: A systematic search for the identification of all relevant studies comparing 21 and 22 G needles in EBUS-TBNA was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases up to September 21, 2014. All the extracted data underwent meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) were calculated and combined using random-effects model. Between study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 1720 patients were identified. The sample adequacy rate was 89.1% in the 21 G group and 90.0% in the 22 G group and this difference was not statistically significant [OR, 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.59; P=0.82]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (73.7% vs. 58.5%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35; P=0.80) or the mean number of needle passes (mean difference -0.31; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.47; P=0.44). There were no major complications reported in any of these studies. Conclusions: There were no differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G groups during EBUS-TBNA. Similarly, the complication rates were low and similar between the 2 groups.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)107-113
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 24 2015

Fingerprint

Needles
Meta-Analysis
Odds Ratio
Confidence Intervals
MEDLINE
Databases

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

Cite this

Meta-analysis of 21- Versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-Guided transbronchial needle aspiration. / Giri, Smith; Pathak, Ranjan; Yarlagadda, Vivek; Karmacharya, Paras; Aryal, Madan R.; Martin, Michael.

In: Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology, Vol. 22, No. 2, 24.04.2015, p. 107-113.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Giri, Smith ; Pathak, Ranjan ; Yarlagadda, Vivek ; Karmacharya, Paras ; Aryal, Madan R. ; Martin, Michael. / Meta-analysis of 21- Versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-Guided transbronchial needle aspiration. In: Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology. 2015 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 107-113.
@article{6898f2fc7ccc48dba17fd6451cda85c8,
title = "Meta-analysis of 21- Versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-Guided transbronchial needle aspiration",
abstract = "Background: Two different needle gauges (21 and 22 G) are currently used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TB107NA using 21 versus 22 G needles. We aimed to systematically analyze all existing literature comparing the diagnostic benefit of these 2 needles. Methods: A systematic search for the identification of all relevant studies comparing 21 and 22 G needles in EBUS-TBNA was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases up to September 21, 2014. All the extracted data underwent meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) were calculated and combined using random-effects model. Between study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 1720 patients were identified. The sample adequacy rate was 89.1{\%} in the 21 G group and 90.0{\%} in the 22 G group and this difference was not statistically significant [OR, 0.94; 95{\%} confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.59; P=0.82]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (73.7{\%} vs. 58.5{\%}; OR, 1.04; 95{\%} CI, 0.80-1.35; P=0.80) or the mean number of needle passes (mean difference -0.31; 95{\%} CI, -1.1 to 0.47; P=0.44). There were no major complications reported in any of these studies. Conclusions: There were no differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G groups during EBUS-TBNA. Similarly, the complication rates were low and similar between the 2 groups.",
author = "Smith Giri and Ranjan Pathak and Vivek Yarlagadda and Paras Karmacharya and Aryal, {Madan R.} and Michael Martin",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "24",
doi = "10.1097/LBR.0000000000000159",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "107--113",
journal = "Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology",
issn = "1944-6586",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Meta-analysis of 21- Versus 22-G aspiration needle during endobronchial ultrasound-Guided transbronchial needle aspiration

AU - Giri, Smith

AU - Pathak, Ranjan

AU - Yarlagadda, Vivek

AU - Karmacharya, Paras

AU - Aryal, Madan R.

AU - Martin, Michael

PY - 2015/4/24

Y1 - 2015/4/24

N2 - Background: Two different needle gauges (21 and 22 G) are currently used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TB107NA using 21 versus 22 G needles. We aimed to systematically analyze all existing literature comparing the diagnostic benefit of these 2 needles. Methods: A systematic search for the identification of all relevant studies comparing 21 and 22 G needles in EBUS-TBNA was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases up to September 21, 2014. All the extracted data underwent meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) were calculated and combined using random-effects model. Between study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 1720 patients were identified. The sample adequacy rate was 89.1% in the 21 G group and 90.0% in the 22 G group and this difference was not statistically significant [OR, 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.59; P=0.82]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (73.7% vs. 58.5%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35; P=0.80) or the mean number of needle passes (mean difference -0.31; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.47; P=0.44). There were no major complications reported in any of these studies. Conclusions: There were no differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G groups during EBUS-TBNA. Similarly, the complication rates were low and similar between the 2 groups.

AB - Background: Two different needle gauges (21 and 22 G) are currently used for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Few studies have compared the diagnostic utility of EBUS-TB107NA using 21 versus 22 G needles. We aimed to systematically analyze all existing literature comparing the diagnostic benefit of these 2 needles. Methods: A systematic search for the identification of all relevant studies comparing 21 and 22 G needles in EBUS-TBNA was performed using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS databases up to September 21, 2014. All the extracted data underwent meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Comprehensive Meta-analysis 3.3. Study-specific odds ratios (OR) were calculated and combined using random-effects model. Between study heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 1720 patients were identified. The sample adequacy rate was 89.1% in the 21 G group and 90.0% in the 22 G group and this difference was not statistically significant [OR, 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.59; P=0.82]. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield (73.7% vs. 58.5%; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80-1.35; P=0.80) or the mean number of needle passes (mean difference -0.31; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.47; P=0.44). There were no major complications reported in any of these studies. Conclusions: There were no differences in the diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, or the mean number of needle passes between the 21 and 22 G groups during EBUS-TBNA. Similarly, the complication rates were low and similar between the 2 groups.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928541147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928541147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000159

DO - 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000159

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 107

EP - 113

JO - Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

JF - Journal of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology

SN - 1944-6586

IS - 2

ER -