Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jan 1;29(1):48-53.
doi: 10.1097/LBR.0000000000000776.

Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE) in Capillary Pull Versus Suction Biopsy Technique With Endobronchial Ultrasound-transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)

Shayan Kassirian  1 , Michael A Mitchell  1   2 , David G McCormack  1   2 , Cady Zeman-Pocrnich  3 , Inderdeep Dhaliwal  1   2
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Rapid On-site Evaluation (ROSE) in Capillary Pull Versus Suction Biopsy Technique With Endobronchial Ultrasound-transbronchial Needle Aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)

Shayan Kassirian et al. J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. .

Abstract

Background: Suction and capillary pull are 2 biopsy techniques used in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). Although these techniques have been shown to perform comparably in terms of overall diagnostic yield, we hypothesized that the capillary pull technique would be associated with improved rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) adequacy rates thus allowing for a shorter procedure time.

Methods: One hundred eighteen patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA for any indication were randomized to suction or capillary pull techniques for the first biopsy pass; the technique used for all subsequent passes was based on operator preference and was not recorded. The first pass was subjected to ROSE and an adequacy assessment was given. ROSE slides were also scored for cellularity of diagnostic/lesional cells and blood contamination. The overall procedure time was also recorded.

Results: There were no significant differences between suction and capillary pull techniques in terms of ROSE adequacy rates. Cellularity of diagnostic/lesional cells and blood contamination scores were also comparable. There was no significant difference in procedure time for the 2 techniques.

Conclusion: This study suggests no differences in ROSE outcomes between suction and capillary pull techniques in EBUS-TBNA. The technique used should therefore be left to the discretion of the operator.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: There is no conflict of interest or other disclosures.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agarwal R, Srinivasan A, Aggarwal AN, et al. Efficacy and safety of convex probe EBUS-TBNA in sarcoidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2012;106:883–892.
    1. Herth FJF, Ernst A, Becker HD. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy in solitary pulmonary nodules and peripheral lesions. Eur Respir J. 2002;20:972–974.
    1. Navani N, Nankivell M, Lawrence DR, et al. Lung cancer diagnosis and staging with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration compared with conventional approaches: an open-label, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3:282–289.
    1. Yasufuku K, Chiyo M, Sekine Y, et al. Real-time Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration of mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. Chest. 2004;126:122–128.
    1. El Haddad R, Barret M, Beuvon F, et al. The slow-pull capillary technique increases the quality of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy samples in solid pancreatic lesions. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28:911–916.

Publication types