Partnership between anesthesia providers and proceduralists is essential to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. A renewed importance of this axiom has emerged in advanced bronchoscopy and interventional pulmonology. While anesthesia-induced atelectasis is common, it is not typically clinically significant. Advanced guided bronchoscopic biopsy is an exception in which anesthesia protocols substantially impact outcomes. Procedure success depends on careful ventilation to avoid excessive motion, reduce distortion causing computed tomography (CT)-to-body-divergence, stabilize dependent areas, and optimize breath-hold maneuvers to prevent atelectasis. Herein are anesthesia recommendations during guided bronchoscopy. An FiO2 of 0.6 to 0.8 is recommended for pre-oxygenation, maintained at the lowest tolerable level for the entire the procedure. Expeditious intubation (not rapid-sequence) with a larger endotracheal tube and non-depolarizing muscle relaxants are preferred. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of up to 10–12 cm H2O and increased tidal volumes help to maintain optimal lung inflation, if tolerated by the patient as determined during recruitment. A breath-hold is required to reduce motion artifact during intraprocedural imaging (e.g., cone-beam CT, digital tomosynthesis), timed at the end of a normal tidal breath (peak inspiration) and held until pressures equilibrate and the imaging cycle is complete. Use of the adjustable pressure-limiting valve is critical to maintain the desired PEEP and reduce movement during breath-hold maneuvers. These measures will reduce atelectasis and CT-to-body divergence, minimize motion artifact, and provide clearer, more accurate images during guided bronchoscopy. Following these recommendations will facilitate a successful lung biopsy, potentially accelerating the time to treatment by avoiding additional biopsies. Application of these methods should be at the discretion of the anesthesiologist and the proceduralist; best medical judgement should be used in all cases to ensure the safety of the patient.

No abstract

ules >6mm) with the potential need to pursue diagnostic sampling were reviewed in a multidisciplinary fashion. Basic demographics and procedural outcomes after the decision to biopsy were obtained. Results: A total of 516 patients were enrolled within the lung cancer screening program from 2013 e 2016. Nodule(s) >6mm were identified in 164 (31.8%) patients. Subsequently, 25 (4.8%) patients underwent some form of invasive testing. The mean age of this population was 66.2 (SD-6.7) years with 56% (14/25) being female and mean pack years of 50.8 (SD-19.5). Percutaneous needle aspiration (n¼11), endoscopic sampling (n¼10), and surgical biopsy/resection (n¼4) were performed as the first invasive diagnostic procedure. The outcomes of this initial sampling were cancer (n¼15), non-diagnostic (n¼7), benign (n¼2), and infection (n¼1). Three patients without an initial diagnosis underwent additional non-surgical biopsy attempts. Overall, surgical resection was performed in twelve patients (6 after previous diagnostic procedure, 2 after previous non-diagnostic procedure, and 4 as initial procedure). Final outcomes were cancer (n¼16), nondiagnostic procedure (n¼4), non-caseating granulomatous inflammation (n¼2), benign diagnosis after wedge resection (n¼2), and infection (n¼1). Conclusion: Within a nurse practitioner led, multidisciplinary, lung cancer screening program, a small proportion of patients undergo invasive diagnostic testing, despite a rather high prevalence of potentially actionable nodules. Within the NLST population receiving computed tomography, 6.1% underwent invasive testing with 43% undergoing testing that ultimately did not result in a cancer diagnosis. Within our multidisciplinary program, 4.8% underwent invasive testing with 36% undergoing testing not ultimately resulting in a cancer diagnosis. The utilization of multidisciplinary teams during the biopsy decision-making process may help decrease the number of non-diagnostic procedures. Further research is needed to help identify tools that improve patient selection for invasive testing in lung cancer screening programs.