Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Diagnostic yield and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and surgical lung biopsy in interstitial lung diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Inês Rodrigues, Ricardo Estêvão Gomes, Lígia Maria Coutinho, Maria Teresa Rego, Firmino Machado, António Morais, Helder Novais Bastos
European Respiratory Review 2022 31: 210280; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0280-2021
Inês Rodrigues
1Pulmonology Dept, Centro Hospitalar de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
9These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ricardo Estêvão Gomes
2Pulmonology Dept, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal
9These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lígia Maria Coutinho
3Escola de Medicina, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maria Teresa Rego
3Escola de Medicina, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Firmino Machado
4Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
5Centro Académico Clínico Egas Moniz Health Alliance, Aveiro, Portugal
6Faculdade de Medicina, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
António Morais
6Faculdade de Medicina, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
7Pulmonology Dept, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for António Morais
Helder Novais Bastos
6Faculdade de Medicina, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
7Pulmonology Dept, Centro Hospitalar Universitário São João, Porto, Portugal
8Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde (i3S), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Helder Novais Bastos
  • For correspondence: hnovaisbastos@med.up.pt
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Introduction: Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) is increasingly being used as an alternative to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) biopsy to establish the histopathologic pattern in interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Methods: A systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases, from October 2010 to October 2020, was conducted to identify studies that reported on diagnostic yield or safety of VATS or TBLC in the diagnosis of ILD.

Results: 43 studies were included. 23 evaluated the diagnostic yield of TBLC after multidisciplinary discussion, with a pooled diagnostic yield of 76.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 70.6–82.1), rising to 80.7% in centres that performed ≥70 TBLC. 10 studies assessed the use of VATS and the pooled diagnostic yield was 93.5% (95% CI 88.3–96.5). In TBLC, pooled incidences of complications were 9.9% (95% CI 6.8–14.3) for significant bleeding (6.9% for centres with ≥70 TBLC), 5.6% (95% CI 3.8–8.2) for pneumothorax treated with a chest tube and 1.4% (95% CI 0.9–2.2) for acute exacerbation of ILD after TBLC. The mortality rates were 0.6% and 1.7% for TBLC and VATS, respectively.

Conclusions: TBLC has a fairly good diagnostic yield, an acceptable safety profile and a lower mortality rate than VATS. The best results are obtained from more experienced centres.

Abstract

Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy has a reasonable diagnostic yield of over 80% in experienced centres, with a better safety profile and lower mortality rate than video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery biopsy in interstitial lung diseases. https://bit.ly/3Nqozmn

Background

Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are a group of diseases characterised by inflammation and scarring of the lung parenchyma [1, 2] but differ in aetiology, pathological findings, treatment options and prognosis [1, 3]. In patients with suspected ILD, the clinical and imaging findings of chest radiography and conventional computed tomography are generally nonspecific and performing high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) is essential to improve diagnostic accuracy [4–6]. Still, in many ILDs, clinical setting and HRCT appearances alone are insufficient to provide a definitive diagnosis [6, 7].

Surgical lung biopsy (SLB) has been considered the gold standard method to establish the histopathologic pattern of a specific type of ILD and better guide the treatment [8–10]. When SLB is deemed necessary, the approach of choice is by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), a less invasive technique that has largely replaced open lung biopsy (OLB) [11]. Nevertheless, this surgical technique also carries risks and complications, and some subgroups of patients (older subjects, patients with significant comorbidities and/or advanced respiratory disease) have high operative mortality, which explains the need to consider the risk:benefit ratio before performing such biopsy [11, 12].

Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) is an innovative bronchoscopic method for tissue sampling of patients with suspicious diffuse parenchymal lung diseases. A cryoprobe is inserted distally into the bronchus, cooled at −79°C (using carbon dioxide) or −89°C (using nitrous oxide) within seconds, and then retrieved with the attached frozen lung tissue [13]. It is increasingly being used for assessing ILDs because it provides tissue samples with a higher percentage of alveolar tissue and fewer crush artefacts, when compared to conventional transbronchial biopsies [14]. Furthermore, this technique has attracted considerable interest in the pulmonology community as a promising and potentially safer alternative to SLB [7, 15, 16].

Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of TBLC versus VATS lung biopsy in patients with suspected ILD.

Methods

We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement for the present systematic review [17]. The protocol was registered and allocated the identification number CRD42020213326 in the PROSPERO database.

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) reported at least one of the procedures (SLB by VATS or TBLC) used for the diagnosis of suspected ILD; 2) reported at least one of the study outcomes; 3) written in English or Portuguese; 4) published within the last 10 years.

To be included in the systematic review, studies had to respect all the inclusion criteria. We excluded abstracts, editorials, reviews, comments and case reports. Given the heterogeneity of parenchymal changes from different ILDs, which potentially impact the biopsy results, studies describing the outcomes of procedures in a sole specific ILD subset were also excluded.

Additionally, when multiple publications from the same centre with overlapping recruitment periods were found, we only included the study with the largest sample size to prevent double counting of patients.

Outcomes evaluated

Two outcomes were defined for this systematic review: diagnostic yield and safety. Diagnostic yield indicates the final clinical diagnosis held by a multidisciplinary team or, when not available, the final histopathological diagnosis. For evaluation of the safety of TBLC, we analysed the incidence of bleeding, pneumothorax and acute exacerbation of ILD. Bleeding was further divided into four categories: “none”; “mild bleeding” (self-limiting bleeding, managed with suction); “moderate bleeding” (controlled with cold saline, vasoconstrictive drugs or by endobronchial blocker); and “severe bleeding” (any bleeding causing hemodynamic or respiratory instability, requiring tamponade or other surgical interventions, transfusions, or admission to the intensive care unit) [7, 18].

As for VATS, we recorded the incidence of recurrent pneumothorax, persistent air leak (defined as an air leak that lasts longer than 5–7 days), pneumonia/empyema, haemothorax, thoracic pain and ILD acute exacerbation. Data from 30-day mortality was collected from both techniques.

Search and selection of the studies

We performed a systematic search of the literature from October 2010 to October 2020 to check all studies that reported relevant information on the diagnostic yield or safety of VATS lung biopsy or TBLC in the diagnosis of ILD. The search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase, and the following search terms were used (both as free text and appropriate subject indexing terms): “interstitial lung disease” OR “diffuse parenchymal lung disease” AND “video-assisted thoracic surgery” OR “VATS” OR “cryobiopsy” OR “cryo-transbronchial”. The search did not include the terms “diagnostic yield” or “safety” to maximise the number of research results.

For the selection of the studies to be included in the systematic review, titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by two authors (I.R. and R.E.G.). Disagreement on any study selection was resolved by an independent review of a third author (H.N.B.). After the first selection, the nonexcluded studies underwent a full-text review, and data was collected from the studies that were considered eligible.

Data extraction

Before the beginning of the reading of the selected articles, a set of items were established to be extracted: 1) publication details (authors, year of publication and country of origin); 2) study design (cross-sectional, cohort or randomised clinical trial); 3) sample size and population demographics (mean age and sex distribution); 4) details of the procedure (number of biopsies per patient; cryoprobe used and cooling time for TBLC studies); 5) characteristics of biopsy specimens (number, surface area, and largest diameter); 6) diagnostic yield (final clinical-pathologic diagnosis); 7) complications associated to the procedure (severe bleeding, pneumothorax and others); and 8) mortality associated with the procedure.

Quality assessment

The quality and validity of each article were assessed using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklists by two reviewers independently. The CASP checklists are a commonly used tool to evaluate the quality appraisal in various types of studies. Based on study design, the CASP cohort study checklist [19], the CASP randomised controlled trial checklist [20] or the CASP diagnostic study checklist [21] were used.

Data analysis

Extracted data were pooled and weighted proportionately to its sample size for all outcomes of interest. The pooled proportions were calculated using the Freeman–Tukey transformation, using a DerSimonian random effects model in the presence of significant heterogeneity. Forest plot graphs were used to illustrate the weighted outcomes as well as the pooled estimation with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity of results was assessed by the I2 statistic, and an I2>40% was considered indicative of significant heterogeneity [22]. The statistical analysis was performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Package version 2.2.064 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) statistical software.

Results

Search results

The initial search identified 1320 citations, and 933 titles and abstracts were review after the removal of duplicates (figure 1). Of these, 68 publications were full text reviewed and 43 studies were included in the final systematic review.

FIGURE 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1

Flowchart of study selection. ILD: interstitial lung disease; VATS: video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery.

Study characteristics

The 43 studies included 4550 patients (sample size range 12–359). TBLC was performed in 2824 patients and SLB (by VATS) in 1814. From the included studies (supplementary table S1), 27 [15, 18, 23–47] evaluated the use of TBLC in the diagnosis of suspected ILDs, 13 [2, 48–59] assessed the use of SLB, and three [60–62] compared the use of TBLC and SLB. In two studies [61, 62], both TBLC and SLB were performed sequentially on the same patient. There were 24 retrospective cohorts, 14 prospective cohorts, three cross-sectional studies and two randomised controlled trials comparing TBLC with conventional forceps sampling (supplementary table S2). 41 studies reported mean or median age, ranging from 45.6 to 66.6 years, and 42 studies reported sex distribution, ranging from 33% to 73% male. The number of tissue samples per subject was reported in 33 studies, ranging from one to eight biopsies in the TBLC group and one to three in the SLB group (supplementary table S3). The mean biopsy area was described in eight studies of TBLC, varying from 9 mm2 to 44.4 mm2.

Outcomes of included studies for each technique are summarised in tables 1 and 2. 25 studies reported histopathological diagnostic and 33 reported final diagnostic yield after histopathologic results were combined with clinical and radiological features in a multidisciplinary team discussion. 41 studies reported procedure-related complications.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Outcomes of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) of the included studies

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 2

Outcomes of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) of the included studies

Study quality

The quality of full-text studies included in this revision was variable (supplementary tables S4, S5 and S6). Most cohort studies (n=38) were considered to have selected the cohort in an acceptable way, but in relation to the outcomes, only 14 studies (36.8%) had precise results. Two of the three diagnostic studies described the methodology well and had reliable results. Regarding the randomised clinical trials included (n=2), both had nonblinded randomisation and, although the results were not considered totally precise, all important outcomes were evaluated.

Diagnostic accuracy and yield

28 studies evaluated the diagnostic yield of TBLC, and a subanalysis was performed based on the criteria applied by each study to define the diagnostic yield (histopathological pattern alone versus final multidisciplinary diagnosis). 17 studies reported diagnostic yield from histopathologic assessment (figure 2a), with a pooled diagnostic yield of 77.1% (95% CI 70.1–82.8; I2=88.7%, p<0.001); 23 studies reported diagnostic yield after multidisciplinary team discussion, with a pooled diagnostic yield of 76.8% (95% CI 70.6–82.1; I2=86.3%, p<0.001). When looking solely at centres that performed ≥70 TBLCs, which has been suggested as the minimum number to achieve proficiency in the technique [63], the diagnostic yield after multidisciplinary team discussion rises to 80.7% (95% CI 71.6–87.4; I2=92.1%, p<0.001).

FIGURE 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2

Meta-analysis of the diagnostic yield of a) transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC) and b) video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, according to diagnostic criteria. The diamonds indicate the pooled effects. CI: confidence interval; MDD: multidisciplinary discussion.

16 studies analysed the use of SLB in the diagnosis of ILD. Eight studies reported histopathologic diagnosis (figure 2b), with a pooled diagnostic yield of 95.3% (95% CI 84.7–98.7; I2=87.5%, p<0.001); 10 studies reported the diagnostic yield after multidisciplinary team discussion, with a pooled estimate of 93.5% (95% CI 88.3–96.5; I2=81.1%, p<0.001).

Only three studies compared TBLC diagnostic accuracy with the gold standard of SLB, in which two studies [61, 62] compared sequential TBLC followed by SLB performed on the same patient. Romagnoli et al. [62] evaluated sequential TLBC and SLB in 21 patients. A histopathological pattern was obtained in 81% of the TBLCs. However, it was concordant with the SLB histopathological pattern in only 38% of cases (κ=0.22), and with the final diagnosis after multidisciplinary team discussion in 48% (κ=0.31). In the same study, SLB was considered the gold-standard procedure and a histopathological diagnosis was achieved in all cases, which was concordant with the definitive diagnosis after multidisciplinary discussion in 62% of cases (κ=0.51). Troy et al. [61] also performed both techniques sequentially but achieved different results. Agreement between TBLC and SLB on histopathological assessment was present in 70.8% cases (κ=0.7) and, for multidisciplinary discussion final diagnosis, raw agreement between TBLC and SLB was 76.9% (κ=0.62). The final diagnostic yield after multidisciplinary discussion was reached in 60% of the TBLC and 74% of SLB. Ravaglia et al. [60] compared TBLC against SLB performed in different patients. A total of 297 patients were submitted to TLBC and 150 to SLB. Only the histopathological diagnostic rate was described for both techniques, with 82.8% and 98.7% for TBLC and SLB, respectively.

Procedure-related complications

41 studies reported procedure-related complications. In relation to TBLC, 26 studies described the occurrence of bleeding. The mean reported frequency for mild bleeding was 29.9% (range 0–96%), moderate bleeding 9.1% (range 0–56.4%) and severe bleeding 1.6% (range 0–13.1%). Pooled incidence of significant bleeding (data available for moderate to severe degrees) was 9.9% (95% CI 6.8–14.3) (figure 3a). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I2=85.2%; p<0.001). When analysing studies that performed ≥70 TBLCs, the incidence of significant bleeding falls to 6.9% (95% CI 4.2–11.2; I2=86.5%, p<0.001).

FIGURE 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3

Complications related to the technique: a) moderate/severe bleeding after transbronchial lung cryobiopsy (TBLC); b) pneumothorax after TBLC and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). The diamonds indicate the pooled effects. CI: confidence interval.

Pneumothorax was reported in 30 TBLC studies. It was present in 261 patients, with a mean occurrence rate of 9.2% (range 0–26%). From the studies that reported the need for chest drain, the pooled incidence of patients with pneumothorax that required drainage was 5.6% (95% CI 3.8–8.2) (figure 3b) and significant heterogeneity was observed (I2=71.5%; p<0.001). The incidence of pneumothorax requiring chest drain for studies that performed ≥70 TBLC was 5.3% (95% CI 3.3–8.6; I2=79.2%, p<0.001). Finally, acute exacerbation of ILD after TBLC was reported in 18 studies, with a pooled incidence rate of 1.4% (95% CI 0.9–2.2%), with an I2 of 0% (p=0.851) (supplementary figure S1).

Considering SLB, 13 studies reported procedure-related complications. The pooled incidence rate of recurrent or persistent pneumothorax (figure 3b) was 5.5% (95% CI 2.5–11.4) with significant heterogeneity (I2=84.0%; p<0.001); 2.1% (95% CI 0.3–13.9) for pneumonia or empyema (supplementary figure S2a), with significant heterogeneity (I2=93.3%; p<0.001); 3.4% (95% CI 2.0–5.8%) for thoracic pain (figure S2b), with no significant heterogeneity (I2=0%; p=0.763); 1.8% (95% CI 0.8–4.0) for persistent air leak (figure S2c), with significant heterogeneity (I2=54.5%; p=0.003); and 2.0% (95% CI 1.3–3.1%) for acute ILD exacerbation (figure S2d), with no significant heterogeneity (I2=0%; p=0.635).

30-day mortality was reported in 29 studies. The mortality rate was 0.6% (range 0–3.2%) and 1.7% (range 0–6.7%) in TBLC and SLB, respectively.

Discussion

In this meta-analysis, TBLC was shown to have a pooled diagnostic yield after multidisciplinary discussion of 76.8%, which raises to 80.7% in experienced centres, while SLB had 93.5%. This means that around eight in every 10 cases may achieve confident diagnosis without undergoing surgery. A difference of similar magnitude was observed for histopathological diagnosis with TBLC, compared to SLB. While histopathological diagnostic yield is a simple measure of biopsy efficacy, evaluating specimen adequacy and the presence of a characteristic histological pattern, which could arguably be considered a more direct measure of comparison between biopsy techniques, the contribution to the final ILD diagnosis must be harmonised with other variables in the context of multidisciplinary team discussion. Therefore, we believe that the real impact of the biopsy technique should be discerned within the frame of a multidisciplinary evaluation of the clinical case.

Conversely, the safety profile analysis benefits TBLC, especially when considering the post-procedural 30-day mortality rate, which is 0.6% for TBLC and more than double, 1.7%, in SLB. This figure is in line with a previous meta-analysis that included both VATS and OLB, where the pooled 30-day mortality rate was 2.2%, but could be as high as 7.8% in studies containing mechanically ventilated patients [3]. Possible explanations for the higher mortality in SLB may be the risk of pneumonia, empyema or ILD acute exacerbation in the post-operative period. Additionally, the collapse induced to the lung that will be biopsied during VATS, which is necessary for visualisation of the pleural cavity, may also be deleterious to the patients undergoing SLB. Previous research has linked repetitive alveolar collapse to epithelial cell injury and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) progression [64, 65], and clinical studies have shown that pneumothorax in IPF patients is associated to dismal prognosis, with high in-hospital mortality rate [66, 67]. Although pneumothorax requiring chest drainage after TBLC may also occur, with a pooled incidence rate of 5.6% in our meta-analysis, we found a surprisingly identical rate of recurrent or persistent pneumothorax after SLB, with a pooled frequency of 5.5% of cases, which provides a second hit with lung collapse and potentially drives clinical worsening in susceptible patients.

Clearly, mortality rate and complications associated with SLB can also be influenced by comorbidities, including immunocompromised status and low baseline lung function [3], especially in elderly patients. In a large cohort study of TBLC cases, impaired lung function was also associated with increased rate of post-procedural pneumothorax, but, conversely, was not related with higher mortality [68]. Moreover, we show in our review that TBLC has been performed safely in patients with a wide range of age, further reinforcing its role to diagnose advanced cases of fibrotic ILDs. On the other hand, the most common complication related to TBLC is moderate to severe bleeding (9.9%), although less frequently in the most experienced centres (6.9%) and often manageable with local endoscopic measures. In a previous meta-analysis, the pooled incidence of moderate to severe bleeding differed widely (4.9–39.0%) [60, 69–71]. This difference may be associated with variability in the reporting of this complication and the absence of a prophylactic endobronchial balloon in some studies, which has been associated with lower rate of significant bleeding [27]. Studies suggest that bleeding risk is independent of baseline functional status, probe size, number of samples or multiple site sampling [68].

There are two features that distinguish the present systematic review and meta-analysis from the previous ones. First, we focus on the final diagnostic yield after the multidisciplinary team discussion, as we believe that a simple histopathological yield is not the most clinically informative outcome. Second, our research included two recent trials comparing TBLC with SLB performed sequentially on the same patients [61, 62], which were absent in former meta-analyses. Interestingly, these trials presented contradicting results, with Romagnoli et al. [62] showing poor concordance between TBLC and SLB for the histologic diagnosis and Troy et al. [61] showing that histopathologic agreement between TBLC and SLB was 70.8%, with the concordance increasing to 94.9% in cases of TBLC with high or definite diagnostic confidence at multidisciplinary discussion. Given these conflicting outcomes, an updated meta-analysis was deemed necessary. Sharp et al. [69] reported a pooled diagnostic yield of 84% (based on 10 studies and abstracts) without specifying their diagnostic criteria; Johannson et al. [70] reported 83% (based on five studies) considering histopathological assessment alone and 79% (based on six studies) when TBLC was incorporated into a multidisciplinary discussion; Ravaglia et al. [60] reported 80% (based on eight studies) referring to the identification of a characteristic histological pattern and 81% (based on seven studies) considering multidisciplinary discussion as the final diagnosis; and Iftikhar et al. [71] reported an overall pooled diagnostic yield of 83.7% (based on 16 studies) considering both diagnostic criteria. Here, we calculated a relatively lower diagnostic yield, which may be related to the higher number of studies included in this analysis (23 studies, excluding abstracts), reporting a wide range of diagnostic yield, from 44.2% to 95.6%, possibly explained by technical differences, such as cryoprobe size, number of biopsies and sampling site, duration of freezing time, use of fluoroscopy, method of sedation (moderate/deep), and use of flexible versus rigid bronchoscopy. Both cryoprobe diameters (1.9 mm and 2.4 mm) were shown to perform similarly in terms of diagnostic performance, although associated with significantly lower pneumothorax rate for the 1.9 mm cryoprobe compared with the 2.4 mm (2.7% versus 21.2%) [68]. A prospective study [72] has shown that two samples taken from two different segments significantly increases the diagnostic rate, compared to two biopsies taken from the same segment alone (78% versus 96%). These results were confirmed by a retrospective cohort, in which both histopathological and multidisciplinary team discussion diagnostic yield were significantly better when samples were obtained from two different sites (either different segments in the same lobe or different lobes) [68]. Finally, the incidence for pneumothorax needing drainage in former analyses was similar to ours, with 3% (1–8%) [60], as was the 30-day mortality (0.3–0.7%) [60, 69, 71].

In summary, our results support the clinical use of TBLC, considering its lower invasiveness over SLB, with less morbi-mortality, shorter hospitalisation stay and better cost-effectiveness profile [43]. In fact, the use of TBLC in the diagnostic algorithm of ILD whose differential diagnosis includes fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis has been already suggested [73]. Another strength of the study is that we compared TBLC with SLB performed through VATS, rather than OLB, since the latter has become less recommended due to higher post-operative complications and longer hospital stays [74].

Although we restricted our analysis to studies written in English or Portuguese, a selection bias is unlikely given that only a minority of manuscripts (<2%) were excluded due to language restrictions, and the present review included studies from 21 different countries. Yet, the heterogeneity found between studies for diagnostic accuracy, occurrence of bleeding and pneumothorax, may be pointed out as a potential drawback of our analysis. Heterogeneity may be explained by technical differences in the TBLC procedure between studies and putative selection bias in studies. Overall, better results are found in the most experienced centres. We have previously shown that approximately 70 procedures are needed to achieve technical proficiency in TBLC, which is associated with significant improvement in sample quality and fewer pneumothorax events, and better diagnostic yield, that reflect both proficiency in technical performance and histopathological sample interpretation [63]. Our meta-analysis confirms that the pooled diagnostic yield was higher and complication rates were lower in studies including 70 or more procedures. However, significant heterogeneity was still observed in this subgroup analysis. In order to standardise procedures, Hetzel et al. [16] have published an expert statement on TBLC proposing recommendations in patient selection, contraindications, risks and technical performance. More recently, Maldonado et al. [7] published the first guidelines on the technical aspects of the TBLC procedure. The latter is expected to homogenise the TBLC procedure between centres, which would result in more reliable results in future studies.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our meta-analysis demonstrates that TBLC contributes to the diagnosis in a great number of patients under study for ILD, with a reasonable safety profile, particularly in centres with more experience. Therefore, it should be considered as an alternative to SLB or at least as a first-line procedure for lung tissue sampling. Guidelines on TBLC techniques should improve the diagnostic yield and reduce the risk of complications.

Supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Please note: supplementary material is not edited by the Editorial Office, and is uploaded as it has been supplied by the author.

Supplementary material ERR-0280-2021.SUPPLEMENT

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: H. Novais Bastos has received support from Sociedade Portuguesa de Pneumologia, as well as grants or contracts from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia and Fundação Amélia de Mello/CUF; consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer-Ingelheim and Roche; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Boehringer-Ingelheim; and equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Boehringer-Ingelheim, all outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

  • Support statement: The authors wish to acknowledge Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia for supporting their research under the scope of the project FIBRA-LUNG (PTDC/MEC-RES/0158/2020). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Received December 27, 2021.
  • Accepted May 25, 2022.
  • Copyright ©The authors 2022
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org

References

  1. ↵
    1. Oliveira DS,
    2. Araújo Filho J de A,
    3. Paiva AFL, et al.
    Idiopathic interstitial pneumonias: review of the latest American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification. Radiol Bras 2018; 51: 321–327. doi:10.1590/0100-3984.2016.0134
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Fibla JJ,
    2. Molins L,
    3. Blanco A, et al.
    Video-assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease: a prospective, multi-center study in 224 patients. Arch Bronconeumol 2012; 48: 81–85. doi:10.1016/j.arbres.2011.11.002
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Han Q,
    2. Luo Q,
    3. Xie JX, et al.
    Diagnostic yield and postoperative mortality associated with surgical lung biopsy for evaluation of interstitial lung diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149: 1394–1401.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.12.057
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Travis WD,
    2. Costabel U,
    3. Hansell DM, et al.
    An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society statement: Update of the international multidisciplinary classification of the idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 188: 733–748. doi:10.1164/rccm.201308-1483ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kadoch MA,
    2. Cham MD,
    3. Beasley MB, et al.
    Idiopathic interstitial pneumonias: a radiology-pathology correlation based on the revised 2013 American Thoracic Society-European Respiratory Society classification system. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2015; 44: 15–25. doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2014.07.005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Bradley B,
    2. Branley HM,
    3. Egan JJ, et al.
    Interstitial lung disease guideline: The British Thoracic Society in collaboration with the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Irish Thoracic Society. Thorax 2008; 63: Suppl. 5, 1–58. doi:10.1136/thx.2008.101691
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Maldonado F,
    2. Danoff SK,
    3. Wells AU, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 2020; 157: 1030–1042. doi:10.1016/j.chest.2019.10.048
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    1. Deconinck B,
    2. Verschakelen J,
    3. Coolen J, et al.
    Diagnostic workup for diffuse parenchymal lung disease: schematic flowchart, literature review, and pitfalls. Lung 2013; 191: 19–25. doi:10.1007/s00408-012-9433-5
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Thomson CC,
    2. Duggal A,
    3. Bice T, et al.
    2018 Clinical practice guideline summary for clinicians: diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2019; 16: 285–290. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201809-604CME
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Remy-Jardin M,
    3. Myers JL, et al.
    Diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. an official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018; 198: e44–e68. doi:10.1164/rccm.201807-1255ST
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Carnochan FM,
    2. Walker WS,
    3. Cameron EW
    . Efficacy of video assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy: an historical comparison with open lung biopsy. Thorax 1994; 49: 361–363. doi:10.1136/thx.49.4.361
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Hutchinson JP,
    2. Fogarty AW,
    3. McKeever TM, et al.
    In-hospital mortality after surgical lung biopsy for interstitial lung disease in the United States. 2000 to 2011. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193: 1161–1167. doi:10.1164/rccm.201508-1632OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lentz RJ,
    2. Christine Argento A,
    3. Colby TV, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy for diffuse parenchymal lung disease: a state-of-the-art review of procedural techniques, current evidence, and future challenges. J Thorac Dis 2017; 9: 2186–2203. doi:10.21037/jtd.2017.06.96
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Ganganah O,
    2. Guo SL,
    3. Chiniah M, et al.
    Efficacy and safety of cryobiopsy versus forceps biopsy for interstitial lung diseases and lung tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Respirology 2016; 21: 834–841. doi:10.1111/resp.12770
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Samitas K,
    2. Kolilekas L,
    3. Vamvakaris I, et al.
    Introducing transbronchial cryobiopsies in diagnosing diffuse parenchymal lung diseases in Greece: implementing training into clinical practice. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0217554. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217554
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Hetzel J,
    2. Maldonado F,
    3. Ravaglia C, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsies for the diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung diseases: expert statement from the cryobiopsy working group on safety and utility and a call for standardization of the procedure. Respiration 2018; 95: 188–200. doi:10.1159/000484055
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. McKenzie JE,
    3. Bossuyt PM, et al.
    The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Hetzel J,
    2. Eberhardt R,
    3. Petermann C, et al.
    Bleeding risk of transbronchial cryobiopsy compared to transbronchial forceps biopsy in interstitial lung disease – a prospective, randomized, multicentre cross-over trial. Respir Res 2019; 20: 140. doi:10.1186/s12931-019-1091-1
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
    . CASP cohort study checklist. https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Cohort-Study-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf Date last accessed: 3 April 2021.
  18. ↵
    1. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
    . CASP randomised controlled trials checklist. https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CASP_RCT_Checklist_PDF_Fillable_Form.pdf Date last accessed: 3 April 2021.
  19. ↵
    1. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme
    . CASP Diagnostic Study Checklist. https://casp-uk.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CASP-Diagnostic-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf Date last accessed: 3 April 2021.
  20. ↵
    1. Higgins JPT,
    2. Thomas J,
    3. Chandler J, et al.
    1. Deeks JJ,
    2. Higgins JP,
    3. Altman DG
    . Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2 (Updated February 2021). London, Cochrane, 2021. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  21. ↵
    1. Bango-Álvarez A,
    2. Ariza-Prota M,
    3. Torres-Rivas H, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy in interstitial lung disease: experience in 106 cases – how to do it. ERJ Open Res 2017; 3: 00148-2016. doi:10.1183/23120541.00148-2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Cho R,
    2. Zamora F,
    3. Gibson H, et al.
    Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease: a retrospective single-center experience. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 2019; 26: 15–21. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000514
    OpenUrl
    1. Linhas R,
    2. Marçôa R,
    3. Oliveira A, et al.
    Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy: associated complications. Rev Port Pneumol 2017; 23: 331–337. doi:10.1016/j.rppnen.2017.07.001
    OpenUrl
    1. Cooley J,
    2. Balestra R,
    3. Aragaki-Nakahodo AA, et al.
    Safety of performing transbronchial lung cryobiopsy on hospitalized patients with interstitial lung disease. Respir Med 2018; 140: 71–76. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2018.05.019
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Dhooria S,
    2. Mehta R,
    3. Srinivasan A, et al.
    The safety and efficacy of different methods for obtaining transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse lung diseases. Clin Respir J 2018; 12: 1711–1720. doi:10.1111/crj.12734
    OpenUrl
    1. Abdelghani R,
    2. Thakore S,
    3. Kaphle U, et al.
    Radial endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial cryobiopsy. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 2019; 26: 245–249. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000566
    OpenUrl
    1. Harari S,
    2. Cereda F,
    3. Pane F, et al.
    Lung cryobiopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases- a series contribution to a debated procedure. Medicina 2019; 55: 606. doi:10.3390/medicina55090606
    OpenUrl
    1. Hagmeyer L,
    2. Theegarten D,
    3. Wohlschläger J, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy in fibrosing interstitial lung disease: modifications of the procedure lead to risk reduction. Thorax 2019; 74: 711–714. doi:10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212095
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Çirak AK,
    2. Katgi N,
    3. Erer OF, et al.
    Diagnostic approach in parenchymal lung diseases: transbronchial lung biopsy or cryobiopsy? Turk J Med Sci 2020; 50: 1535–1539. doi:10.3906/sag-1910-47
    OpenUrl
    1. Shafiek H,
    2. Elbialy S,
    3. El Achy SN, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy validity in diagnosing diffuse parenchymal lung diseases in Egyptian population. J Multidiscip Healthc 2019; 12: 719–726. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S208824
    OpenUrl
    1. Griff S,
    2. Schönfeld N,
    3. Ammenwerth W, et al.
    Diagnostic yield of transbronchial cryobiopsy in non-neoplastic lung disease: a retrospective case series. BMC Pulm Med 2014; 14: 171. doi:10.1186/1471-2466-14-171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Koslow M,
    2. Edell ES,
    3. Midthun DE, et al.
    Bronchoscopic cryobiopsy and forceps biopsy for the diagnostic evaluation of diffuse parenchymal lung disease in clinical practice. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes 2020; 4: 565–574. doi:10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2020.05.005
    OpenUrl
    1. Bondue B,
    2. Leduc D,
    3. Froidure A, et al.
    Usefulness of surgical lung biopsies after cryobiopsies when pathological results are inconclusive or show a pattern suggestive of a nonspecific interstitial pneumonia. Respir Res 2020; 21: 231. doi:10.1186/s12931-020-01487-w
    OpenUrl
    1. Pajares V,
    2. Núñez-Delgado M,
    3. Bonet G, et al.
    Transbronchial biopsy results according to diffuse interstitial lung disease classification. Cryobiopsy versus forceps: MULTICRIO study. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0239114. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0239114
    OpenUrl
    1. Wang W,
    2. Xu J,
    3. Liu C, et al.
    The significance of multidisciplinary classifications based on transbronchial pathology in possible idiopathic interstitial pneumonias. Medicine 2020; 99: e20930. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000020930
    OpenUrl
    1. Aburto M,
    2. Pérez-Izquierdo J,
    3. Agirre U, et al.
    Complications and hospital admission in the following 90 days after lung cryobiopsy performed in interstitial lung disease. Respir Med 2020; 165: 105934. doi:10.1016/j.rmed.2020.105934
    OpenUrl
    1. Gnass M,
    2. Filarecka A,
    3. Bartczak A, et al.
    Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy guided by radial mini-probe endobronchial ultrasound in interstitial lung diseases — a multicenter prospective study. Adv Respir Med 2020; 88: 123–128. doi:10.5603/ARM.2020.0086
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Hussein S,
    2. Elhadidy A,
    3. Amin H, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy as a new tool for lung biopsies in diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung diseases. Egypt J Chest Dis Tuberc 2020; 69: 649–658. doi:10.4103/ejcdt.ejcdt
    OpenUrl
    1. Pajares V,
    2. Puzo C,
    3. Castillo D, et al.
    Diagnostic yield of transbronchial cryobiopsy in interstitial lung disease: a randomized trial. Respirology 2014; 19: 900–906. doi:10.1111/resp.12322
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Fruchter O,
    2. Fridel L,
    3. El Raouf BA, et al.
    Histological diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases by cryo-transbronchial biopsy. Respirology 2014; 19: 683–688. doi:10.1111/resp.12296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hernández-González F,
    2. Lucena CM,
    3. Ramírez J, et al.
    Cryobiopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse interstitial lung disease: yield and cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Bronconeumol 2015; 51: 261–267. doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2015.02.001
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kronborg-White S,
    2. Folkersen B,
    3. Rasmussen TR, et al.
    Introduction of cryobiopsies in the diagnostics of interstitial lung diseases – experiences in a referral center. Eur Clin Respir J 2017; 4: 1274099. doi:10.1080/20018525.2016.1274099
    OpenUrl
    1. Ramaswamy A,
    2. Homer R,
    3. Killam J, et al.
    Comparison of transbronchial and cryobiopsies in evaluation of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 2016; 23: 14–21. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000246
    OpenUrl
    1. Cascante JA,
    2. Cebollero P,
    3. Herrero S, et al.
    Transbronchial cryobiopsy in interstitial lung disease are we on the right path? J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 2016; 23: 204–209. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000292
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Lentz RJ,
    2. Taylor TM,
    3. Kropski JA, et al.
    Utility of flexible bronchoscopic cryobiopsy for diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung diseases. J Bronchol Interv Pulmonol 2018; 25: 88–96. doi:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000401
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Pompeo E,
    2. Rogliani P,
    3. Cristino B, et al.
    Awake thoracoscopic biopsy of interstitial lung disease. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 445–452. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.10.043
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Sugino K,
    2. Otsuka H,
    3. Matsumoto Y, et al.
    The role of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2019; 36: 148–156. doi:10.36141/svdld.v36i2.7797
    OpenUrl
    1. Pastre J,
    2. Khandhar S,
    3. Barnett S, et al.
    Surgical lung biopsy for interstitial lung disease – safety and feasibility at a tertiary referral center. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2021; 18: 460–467. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.202006-759OC
    OpenUrl
    1. Cherchi R,
    2. Grimaldi G,
    3. Pinna-Susnik M, et al.
    Retrospective outcomes analysis of 99 consecutive uniportal awake lung biopsies: a real standard of care? J Thorac Dis 2020; 12: 4717–4730. doi:10.21037/jtd-20-1551
    OpenUrl
    1. Luo Q,
    2. Han Q,
    3. Chen X, et al.
    The diagnosis efficacy and safety of video-assisted thoracoscopy surgery (VATS) in undefined interstitial lung diseases: a retrospective study. J Thorac Dis 2013; 5: 283–288. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.04.12
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Kayatta MO,
    2. Ahmed S,
    3. Hammel JA, et al.
    Surgical biopsy of suspected interstitial lung disease is superior to radiographic diagnosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 399–401. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.04.065
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Morris D,
    2. Zamvar V
    . The efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lung biopsies in patients with interstitial lung disease: a retrospective study of 66 patients. J Cardiothorac Surg 2014; 9: 45. doi:10.1186/1749-8090-9-45
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Bagheri R,
    2. Haghi SZ,
    3. Attaran D, et al.
    Efficacy of minimally invasive surgery in diagnosis of interstitial lung disease. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2015; 23: 851–854. doi:10.1177/0218492315593694
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Samejima J,
    2. Tajiri M,
    3. Ogura T, et al.
    Thoracoscopic lung biopsy in 285 patients with diffuse pulmonary disease. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2015; 23: 191–197. doi:10.1177/0218492314550724
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Khalil M,
    2. Cowen M,
    3. Chaudhry M, et al.
    Single versus multiple lung biopsies for suspected interstitial lung disease. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2016; 24: 788–791. doi:10.1177/0218492316665551
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lieberman S,
    2. Gleason JB,
    3. Ilyas MIM, et al.
    Assessing the safety and clinical impact of thoracoscopic lung biopsy in patients with interstitial lung disease. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11: OC57–OC59. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2017/20281.9626
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Jeon CS,
    2. Yoon DW,
    3. Moon SM, et al.
    Non-intubated video-assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy for interstitial lung disease: a single-center experience. J Thorac Dis 2018; 10: 3262–3268. doi:10.21037/jtd.2018.05.144
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Ravaglia C,
    2. Bonifazi M,
    3. Wells AU, et al.
    Safety and diagnostic yield of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse parenchymal lung diseases: a comparative study versus video-assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy and a systematic review of the literature. Respiration 2016; 91: 215–227. doi:10.1159/000444089
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Troy LK,
    2. Grainge C,
    3. Corte TJ, et al.
    Diagnostic accuracy of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy for interstitial lung disease diagnosis (COLDICE): a prospective, comparative study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 171–181. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(19)30342-X
    OpenUrl
  29. ↵
    1. Romagnoli M,
    2. Colby TV,
    3. Berthet J-P, et al.
    Poor concordance between sequential transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and surgical lung biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse interstitial lung diseases. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 199: 1249–1256. doi:10.1164/rccm.201810-1947OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Almeida LM,
    2. Lima B,
    3. Mota PC, et al.
    Learning curve for transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse lung disease. Pulmonology 2018; 24: 23–31. doi:10.1016/j.rppnen.2017.09.005
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Lutz D,
    2. Gazdhar A,
    3. Lopez-Rodriguez E, et al.
    Alveolar derecruitment and collapse induration as crucial mechanisms in lung injury and fibrosis. Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 2015; 52: 232–243. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2014-0078OC
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Wasnick RM,
    2. Korfei M,
    3. Piskulak K, et al.
    Restored alveolar epithelial differentiation and reversed human lung fibrosis upon Notch inhibition. bioRxiv 2019; preprint [https://doi.org/10.1101/580498].
  33. ↵
    1. Nishimoto K,
    2. Fujisawa T,
    3. Yoshimura K, et al.
    The prognostic significance of pneumothorax in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Respirology 2018; 23: 519–525. doi:10.1111/resp.13219
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Yamazaki R,
    2. Nishiyama O,
    3. Gose K, et al.
    Pneumothorax in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: a real-world experience. BMC Pulm Med 2021; 21: 5. doi:10.1186/s12890-020-01370-w
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Ravaglia C,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Tomassetti S, et al.
    Diagnostic yield and risk/benefit analysis of trans-bronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse parenchymal lung diseases: a large cohort of 699 patients. BMC Pulm Med 2019; 19: 16. doi:10.1186/s12890-019-0780-3
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Sharp C,
    2. McCabe M,
    3. Adamali H, et al.
    Use of transbronchial cryobiopsy in the diagnosis of interstitial lung disease – a systematic review and cost analysis. QJM 2017; 110: 207–214. doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcw142
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Johannson KA,
    2. Marcoux VS,
    3. Ronksley PE, et al.
    Diagnostic yield and complications of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy for interstitial lung disease. A systematic review and metaanalysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13: 1828–1838. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201606-461SR
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Iftikhar IH,
    2. Alghothani L,
    3. Sardi A, et al.
    Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and video-assisted thoracoscopic lung biopsy in the diagnosis of diffuse parenchymal lung disease. A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2017; 14: 1197–1211. doi:10.1513/AnnalsATS.201701-086SR
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Ravaglia C,
    2. Wells AU,
    3. Tomassetti S, et al.
    Transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in diffuse parenchymal lung disease: comparison between biopsy from 1 segment and biopsy from 2 segments – diagnostic yield and complications. Respiration 2017; 93: 285–292. doi:10.1159/000456671
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Raghu G,
    2. Wilson KC,
    3. Bargagli E, et al.
    Diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis in adults: an official ATS/JRS/ALAT clinical practice guideline. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202: E36–E69. doi:10.1164/rccm.202005-2032ST
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    1. Fishbein MC
    . Diagnosis: to biopsy or not to biopsy: assessing the role of surgical lung biopsy in the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Chest 2005; 128: Suppl. 1, 520S–525S. doi:10.1378/chest.128.5_suppl_1.520S
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 31 Issue 166 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Review: 31 (166)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Diagnostic yield and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and surgical lung biopsy in interstitial lung diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Diagnostic yield and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and surgical lung biopsy in interstitial lung diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Inês Rodrigues, Ricardo Estêvão Gomes, Lígia Maria Coutinho, Maria Teresa Rego, Firmino Machado, António Morais, Helder Novais Bastos
European Respiratory Review Dec 2022, 31 (166) 210280; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0280-2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Diagnostic yield and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy and surgical lung biopsy in interstitial lung diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Inês Rodrigues, Ricardo Estêvão Gomes, Lígia Maria Coutinho, Maria Teresa Rego, Firmino Machado, António Morais, Helder Novais Bastos
European Respiratory Review Dec 2022, 31 (166) 210280; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0280-2021
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Background
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Supplementary material
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Interstitial and orphan lung disease
  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • The role of smoking on COVID-19 progression: a meta-analysis
  • PAP therapy for post-stroke sleep disordered breathing
  • Severe COVID-19 versus multisystem inflammatory syndrome
Show more Reviews

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERR

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising
  • Sponsorship

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 0905-9180
Online ISSN: 1600-0617

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society