Study of Procedural Efficiency in EBUS With Dual Versus Single NEEDLEs: Evaluating the Value of a Second Needle in EBUS as it Pertains to Economic and Environmental Impact
NCT ID: NCT07218042
Last Updated: 2025-10-17
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.
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
126 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2024-02-02
2025-12-31
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
Procedural Outcomes in Endobronchial Ultrasound - Transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) With and Without Rapid On-Site Evaluation (ROSE)
NCT02028052
EBUS-TBNA vs Acquire TBNB
NCT04200105
Diagnostic Yield & Specimen Adequacy of Flex 19 G vs 22 G EBUS Needle - A Randomized Controlled Trial
NCT05535439
Comparison of 22-gauge and 19-gauge Aspiration Needle During EBUS-TBNA
NCT02813603
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
In our bronchoscopy suite, our current practice varies based on the bronchoscopist and number of lymph nodes requiring sampling in a procedure (can range from 1-5) as to whether one or two needles are utilized. The bronchoscopist may use two needles to save time when multiple lymph nodes must be biopsied or if an individual node needs to be biopsied several times to obtain more tissue for pathologic study.
EBUS needles are single use and there is one randomized trial (n=20 patients) that showed a decreased time of procedure in patients where two needles were used versus one (Khan et al., 2013). However, no data exist evaluating the economic impact (cost of needle versus endoscopy dollars saved) or environmental impact of using one versus two needles. This study will examine these factors to determine the optimal way to perform this procedure in the future, considering the procedure and anesthesia time, economic costs, and environmental costs.
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
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
One EBUS Needle
Patients underwent a standard of care EBUS with one needle utilized in the procedure.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
Two EBUS Needle
Patients underwent standard of care EBUS with two needles used.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
We randomized patients to the two arms above; there was no specific intervention performed other than randomizing patients to one or two needles.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* Other criteria per protocol uploaded
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Duke University
OTHER
University of California, Davis
OTHER
Christopher Kapp
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Christopher Kapp
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
University of California, Davis
Sacramento, California, United States
Northwestern University
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Provided Documents
Download supplemental materials such as informed consent forms, study protocols, or participant manuals.
Document Type: Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
Document Type: Informed Consent Form
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
STU00220729
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.