ArticleThoracic cancer2018
Safety of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in patients with lung cancer within a year after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of high flow nasal cannulae during endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (EBUS) in high anaesthetic risk patients: a monocentric prospective study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Observational
- Effects of Antithrombotic Treatment on Bleeding Complications of EBUS-TBNA.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) may be necessary for patients with incidental lung cancer during or after coronary intervention. Although EBUS-TBNA is quite safe, the safety in patients who recently received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of EBUS-TBNA in patients with lung cancer who underwent PCI within one year.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 24 patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA within one year after PCI between May 2009 and June 2017. Cardiovascular complications (death, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and acute heart failure) were assessed as primary outcomes. Procedural-related complications were assessed as secondary outcomes.
resultsThe coronary artery diseases requiring PCI were: myocardial infarction (n = 10), unstable angina (n = 10), stable angina (n = 2), and silent ischemia (n = 2). The median interval between PCI and EBUS-TBNA was 125 days (interquartile range: 66-180). Atrial fibrillation with a rapid ventricular response temporarily occurred in one patient after EBUS-TBNA. No other significant cardiovascular complications were encountered. Fifteen patients were administered an anti-thrombotic agent the day of EBUS-TBNA, while four had ceased taking the agent < 4 days before EBUS-TBNA, however, there was no significant bleeding among those patients.
conclusionEBUS-TBNA was safe and did not cause serious adverse events in patients with lung cancer who required tissue confirmation or mediastinal staging within one year after PCI. Incidental lung cancer found during or after a coronary intervention should be actively evaluated by EBUS-TBNA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.