Chest ACCP Education Calendar
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Guest Access | Sign In via User Name/Password
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Article Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Diacon, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Bolliger, C. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Diacon, A. H.
Right arrow Articles by Bolliger, C. T.
(Chest. 2005;127:2015-2018.)
© 2005 American College of Chest Physicians

Transbronchial Needle Aspirates*

Comparison of Two Preparation Methods

Andreas H. Diacon, MD; Macé M. Schuurmans, MD; Johan Theron, MD; Karen Brundyn, MD; Mercia Louw, MD; Colleen A. Wright, MD and Chris T. Bolliger, MD, PhD

* From the Departments of Internal Medicine (Drs. Diacon, Theron, Schuurmans, and Bolliger) and Anatomical Pathology (Drs. Brundyn, Louw, and Wright), Tygerberg Academic Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa.

Correspondence to: Andreas H. Diacon, MD, Department of Internal Medicine, PO Box 19063, 7505 Tygerberg, South Africa; e-mail: ahd{at}sun.ac.za

Study objectives: Transbronchial needle aspiration has evolved as a key bronchoscopic sampling method. Specimen handling and preparation are underrated yet crucial aspects of the technique. This study was designed to identify which of two widely practiced sample preparation methods has a higher yield.

Design: Prospective comparison of two diagnostic methods.

Setting: Tertiary academic hospital.

Patients: Consecutive patients undergoing transbronchial needle aspiration.

Interventions: Transbronchial aspirates were obtained pairwise. One specimen was placed directly onto a slide and smears were prepared on site (ie, the direct technique), and the other specimen was deposited into a vial containing 95% alcohol and further prepared in the laboratory (ie, the fluid technique). In total, 282 pairs of samples were aspirated from 145 target sites (paratracheal, 10 sites; tracheobronchial, 101 sites; hilar, 17 sites; endobronchial or peripheral, 17 sites).

Measurements and results: The measured outcome was the presence of diagnostic material at the final laboratory assessment. At least one diagnostic aspirate was obtained in 66% of 86 investigated patients (small cell lung cancer, 18 patients; non-small cell lung cancer, 47 patients; other diagnoses, 21 patients). The direct technique had a better yield overall than the fluid technique (positive aspirates, 36.2% vs 12.4%, respectively; p < 0.01), as well as after stratification for tumor type and for anatomic site.

Conclusion: The direct technique is superior to the fluid technique for the preparation of transbronchial needle aspirates.

Key Words: bronchoscopy • cytodiagnosis • fine-needle biopsy • lung neoplasms






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Chest Physicians.