Diagnostic Yield & Specimen Adequacy of Flex 19 G vs 22 G EBUS Needle - A Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT ID: NCT05535439
Last Updated: 2023-09-11
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
NA
150 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2022-09-15
2023-08-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
EBUS-TBNA vs Flex 19G EBUS-TBNA
NCT02916459
EBUS-TBNA vs Flex 19G EBUS-TBNA
NCT02592837
EBUS-TBNA Versus EBUS-TBNB
NCT01467635
Comparison of 22-gauge and 19-gauge Aspiration Needle During EBUS-TBNA
NCT02813603
Effect of Needle Size in Diagnostic Yield of EBUS-TBNA in Sarcoidosis and Lymphoma
NCT03573362
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Traditionally, a 22 G EBUS TBNA needle is utilized in majority of center due to better maneuverability and lymph node opposition during its insertion into the node with an inherent limitation of lower volume of sample. A systematic review of 33 studies involving 2698 patients of lung cancer showed pooled probability of obtaining a sufficient sample of 94.5% which was adequate for anaplastic lymphoma (ALK) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation but there was an uncertainty regarding sample suitability for next generation sequencing. Subsequently, a 21 G needle was introduced to acquire more tissue in the form of core biopsy like material for molecular profiling. However, comparative studies showed conflicting results for specimen adequacy and diagnostic yield between the two (21 G vs 22 G) needle sizes. Although there was a high success rate of diagnosis with both needles, better characterization of non-malignant diseases and histologic preservation of malignant disease was evident with 21 G needles. To enable the core tissue sampling with flexibility of needle a new Pro-Core needle was developed. However, a recent pilot study evaluating the Echo Tip Pro-Core needle showed no additional benefits to specimen adequacy when compared with conventional needles. In a randomized study of sarcoid patients, Recent study showed no difference in the sensitivity, specimen adequacy, or safety of EBUS-TBNA when performed with the Pro-Core or the conventional needle. Continual development to yield better results, a gauge-up 19 G needle was introduced to address the challenges with diagnostic accuracy in lymphoma and sarcoidosis. The flexibility of the 19 G needle with larger tissue specimen for cytology and histology assessment addressed some of the technical limitation of earlier EBUS-TBNA with no complications. The performance of 19 G needle in comparison to 21 G or 22 G needle showed no difference in diagnostic yield in multiple studies. Although the specimen obtained with gauge-up needles like 19 G needle has been shown to be superior in terms of more cellular material and ability to subclassify malignant or granulomatous disease, its utility is limited by more bloody samples. These reports suggests, in a subset of conditions which requires tissue architectures for establishing the diagnosis, a larger bore needles may be more useful.
Considering, no statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield in studies comparing different needle size, a FNB devise through an EBUS procuring exclusive core tissue might be beneficial. Although, the benefits of a 22 G FNB device showing improved diagnostic yield with core tissue in patients with gastrointestinal diseases, there is limited data showing benefits of FNB devise used through EBUS for mediastinal lymphadenopathy. The first retrospective study of 100 patients using EBUS FNB reported core biopsy sample in 87% patients with diagnostic yield approaching 97%.. Herein, investigators intend to study the diagnostic yield and safety of the 22 G EBUS-FNB needle in comparison with 19 G EBUS-FNA needle in the evaluation of mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy. Investigators hypothesize that both needle will have a similar diagnostic yield due to the acquisition of a better and core tissue specimen.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
DIAGNOSTIC
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
19 G EBUS-TBNA Needle
Mediastinal or Hilar Lymphadenopathy will be sampled by using 19 G EBUS-TBNA Needle
EBUS-TBNA using 22 G EBUS-FNB Device OR 19 G EBUS-FNA needle
Both arm will be interventional where mediastinal lymph nodes will be sampled by two typs of needle
22 G EBUS-FNB Device
Mediastinal or Hilar Lymphadenopathy will be sampled by using 22 G EBUS-FNB Device
EBUS-TBNA using 22 G EBUS-FNB Device OR 19 G EBUS-FNA needle
Both arm will be interventional where mediastinal lymph nodes will be sampled by two typs of needle
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
EBUS-TBNA using 22 G EBUS-FNB Device OR 19 G EBUS-FNA needle
Both arm will be interventional where mediastinal lymph nodes will be sampled by two typs of needle
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. Radiographic features of mediastinal or hilar adenopathy (\>10 mm in any axis)
Exclusion Criteria
2. Patients receiving anticoagulants or having known bleeding diathesis
3. Patients with poor cardiopulmonary reserve or marked hypoxemia at rest
4. Accessibility of more convenient site to establish the diagnosis
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences
OTHER_GOV
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Ajmal Khan
Additional Professor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Ajmal Khan, MD, DM
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
SGPGIMS
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Pulmonary Medicine, SGPGIMS
Lucknow, U P, India
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
EBUS RCT 2022
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.