One of the most important aspects of interventional pulmonology is to obtain tissue or liquid samples of the chest to diagnose a respiratory disease;however,it is still possible to obtain insufficient tissue or cytolo...One of the most important aspects of interventional pulmonology is to obtain tissue or liquid samples of the chest to diagnose a respiratory disease;however,it is still possible to obtain insufficient tissue or cytologic specimens.Indeed,methylation detection is an effective method by which to establish a diagnosis.This review focuses on the clinical application of short stature homeobox 2 and RAS-associated domain family 1 subtype A DNA methylation detection in interventional pulmonology,including bronchoscopic fluid biopsy,transbronchial needle aspiration,and pleural effusion.展开更多
Introduction: Thoracentesis is a common pulmonary procedure;however, great variability still exists in provider practices. Standard of care methods ranges from vacuum assisted to manual aspiration to use of wall sucti...Introduction: Thoracentesis is a common pulmonary procedure;however, great variability still exists in provider practices. Standard of care methods ranges from vacuum assisted to manual aspiration to use of wall suctioning. Few studies have compared efficiency, safety or patient comfort between different methods of pleural fluid evacuation. We sought to investigate which of three standard of care methods implemented most frequently at our institution took the least amount of time to perform and caused the least symptoms and complications. Methods: We performed a single center, randomized controlled study to determine which method of thoracentesis (wall suctioning [N = 15], manual aspiration [N = 8], or vacuum drainage [N = 12]) was the most efficient in terms of procedural time and post-procedural symptoms. 35 patients undergoing therapeutic thoracentesis were randomized to the study. Procedural time was recorded from the onset of pleural fluid drainage and was measured at 500 mL, 750 mL, 1000 mL and at termination of drainage. Pain and dyspnea scores were assessed on a verbal numerical pain rating sale (NRS) and Modified Borg Dyspnea Scale (MBS). Scores were reported pre-procedure, after thoracentesis catheter placement before fluid removal, after termination of drainage prior to removal of catheter, immediately after catheter removal, 5 minutes post-procedure, and 24 hours post-procedure. Results: The differences in procedural time among groups were significant (p p p = 0.006 and p = 0.004;respectively. Discussion: This study comparing various methods of pleural fluid drainage reveals reduced procedural time with vacuum bottle drainage and suggests that vacuum bottle drainage in our study population was more efficient with less associated symptoms compared to the other two standard of care methods. These findings would benefit from further analysis in a larger, randomized study to corroborate our findings.展开更多
文摘One of the most important aspects of interventional pulmonology is to obtain tissue or liquid samples of the chest to diagnose a respiratory disease;however,it is still possible to obtain insufficient tissue or cytologic specimens.Indeed,methylation detection is an effective method by which to establish a diagnosis.This review focuses on the clinical application of short stature homeobox 2 and RAS-associated domain family 1 subtype A DNA methylation detection in interventional pulmonology,including bronchoscopic fluid biopsy,transbronchial needle aspiration,and pleural effusion.
文摘Introduction: Thoracentesis is a common pulmonary procedure;however, great variability still exists in provider practices. Standard of care methods ranges from vacuum assisted to manual aspiration to use of wall suctioning. Few studies have compared efficiency, safety or patient comfort between different methods of pleural fluid evacuation. We sought to investigate which of three standard of care methods implemented most frequently at our institution took the least amount of time to perform and caused the least symptoms and complications. Methods: We performed a single center, randomized controlled study to determine which method of thoracentesis (wall suctioning [N = 15], manual aspiration [N = 8], or vacuum drainage [N = 12]) was the most efficient in terms of procedural time and post-procedural symptoms. 35 patients undergoing therapeutic thoracentesis were randomized to the study. Procedural time was recorded from the onset of pleural fluid drainage and was measured at 500 mL, 750 mL, 1000 mL and at termination of drainage. Pain and dyspnea scores were assessed on a verbal numerical pain rating sale (NRS) and Modified Borg Dyspnea Scale (MBS). Scores were reported pre-procedure, after thoracentesis catheter placement before fluid removal, after termination of drainage prior to removal of catheter, immediately after catheter removal, 5 minutes post-procedure, and 24 hours post-procedure. Results: The differences in procedural time among groups were significant (p p p = 0.006 and p = 0.004;respectively. Discussion: This study comparing various methods of pleural fluid drainage reveals reduced procedural time with vacuum bottle drainage and suggests that vacuum bottle drainage in our study population was more efficient with less associated symptoms compared to the other two standard of care methods. These findings would benefit from further analysis in a larger, randomized study to corroborate our findings.
