Background: In lung cancer patients, accurate assessment of mediastinal and vascular tumor invasion (stage T4) is crucial for optimal treatment allocation and to prevent unnecessary thoracotomies.... Show moreBackground: In lung cancer patients, accurate assessment of mediastinal and vascular tumor invasion (stage T4) is crucial for optimal treatment allocation and to prevent unnecessary thoracotomies. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) for T4-status in patients with centrally located lung cancer.Methods: This is a retrospective study among consecutive patients who underwent EBUS for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer in four hospitals in The Netherlands (Amsterdam, Leiden), Italy (Bologna) and Poland (Zakopane) between 04-2012 and 04-2019. Patients were included if the primary tumor was detected by EBUS and subsequent surgical-pathological staging was performed, which served as the reference standard. T4-status was extracted from EBUS and pathology reports. Chest CT's were re-reviewed for T4-status.Results: 104 patients with lung cancer in whom EBUS detected the primary tumour, and who underwent subsequent surgical-pathological staging were included. 36 patients (35 %) had T4-status, based on vascular (n = 17), mediastinal (n = 15), both vascular and mediastinal (n = 3), or oesophageal invasion (n = 1). For EBUS, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for T4-status were (n = 104): 63.9 % (95 %CI 46.2-79.2 %), 92.6 % (83.7-97.6 %), 82.1 % (65.6-91.7 %), and 82.9 % (75.7-88.2 %), respectively. For chest CT (n = 72): 61.5 % (95 %CI 40.6-79.8 %), 37.0 % (23.2-52.5 %), 35.6 % (27.5-44.6 %), and 63.0 % (47.9-75.9 %), respectively. When combining CT and EBUS with concordant T4 status (n = 33): 90.9 % (95 %CI 58.7-99.8 %), 77.3 % (54.6-92.20 %), 66.7 % (47.5-81.6 %), and 94.4 % (721-99.1%), respectively.Conclusion: Both EBUS and CT alone are inaccurate for assessing T4-status as standalone test. However, combining a negative EBUS with a negative CT may rule out T4-status with high certainty. Show less
Diephuis, E.; Borgie, C. de; Tomsic, A.; Winkelman, J.; W.J. van boven; Bouma, B.; ... ; Koolbergen, D. 2020
Background: Excessive bleeding, incomplete wound drainage, and subsequent accumulation of blood and clots in the pericardium have been associated with a broad spectrum of bleeding-related... Show moreBackground: Excessive bleeding, incomplete wound drainage, and subsequent accumulation of blood and clots in the pericardium have been associated with a broad spectrum of bleeding-related complications after cardiac surgery. We developed and studied the continuous postoperative pericardial flushing (CPPF) method to improve wound drainage and reduce blood loss and bleeding-related complications.Methods: We conducted a single-center, open-label, ITT, randomized controlled trial at the Academic Medical Center Amstserdam. Adults undergoing cardiac surgery for non-emergent valvular or congenital heart disease (CHD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive CPPF method or standard care. The primary outcome was actual blood loss after 12-hour stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Secondary outcomes included bleeding-related complications and clinical outcome after six months follow-up.Findings: Between May 2013 and February 2016, 170 patients were randomly allocated to CPPF method (study group; n = 80) or to standard care (control group; n = 90). CPPF significantly reduced blood loss after 12-hour stay in the ICU (-41%) when compared to standard care (median differences -155 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -310 to 0; p=0.001). Cardiac tamponade and reoperation for bleeding did not occur in the study group versus one and three in the control group, respectively. At discharge from hospital, patients in the study group were less likely to have pleural effusion in a surgically opened pleural cavity (22% vs. 36%; p = 0.043).Interpretation: Our study results indicate that CPPF is a safe and effective method to improve chest tube patency and reduce blood loss after cardiac surgery. Larger trials are needed to draw final conclusions concerning the effectiveness of CPPF on clinically relevant outcomes. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
