Safety of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration for Patients Taking Clopidogrel: A Report of 12 Consecutive Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel is an oral agent commonly used for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. It is associated with an increased risk of bleeding during some medical and surgical procedures. Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a new bronchoscopic technique used to accurately biopsy intrathoracic structures during flexible bronchoscopy. It is currently unknown whether clopidogrel increases bleeding complications during EBUS-TBNA procedures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety of clopidogrel use in EBUS-TBNA by identifying consecutive cases of EBUS-TBNA procedures performed on patients taking clopidogrel. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected quality improvement database from 1,100 consecutive pulmonary procedures performed by an interventional pulmonologist (D.R.S.) at the University of Calgary from July 1st, 2007 to April 1st, 2011 was performed. RESULTS: Twelve cases of EBUS-TBNA procedures performed on patients taking clopidogrel were identified. Mean age was 74 years (range 61-85). Seven patients (66.7%) were taking aspirin in addition to clopidogrel. There was no significant bleeding seen in any cases at the time of bronchoscopy and no additional complications were identified during follow-up (at least 4 weeks; median follow-up 3 months). CONCLUSIONS: This series of 12 cases suggests that EBUS-TBNA can be performed safely by experienced operators in patients taking clopidogrel. Nevertheless, until larger prospective studies confirm this hypothesis, proceeding to EBUS-TBNA without first withdrawing clopidogrel should only be performed in situations where the risk of short-term thrombosis is believed to outweigh the (theoretical) risk of bleeding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".