Transbronchial Lung Cryobiopsies, Transbronchial Forceps Lung Biopsies, and Surgical Lung Biopsies in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Lung biopsies are sometimes performed in mechanically ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) of unknown etiology to guide patient management. While surgical lung biopsies (SLB) offer high diagnostic rates, they may also cause significant complications. Transbronchial forceps lung biopsies (TBLB) are less invasive but often produce non-contributive specimens. Transbronchial lung cryobiopsies (TBLC) yield specimens of potentially better quality than TBLB, but due to their novel implementation in the intensive care unit (ICU), their accuracy and safety are still unclear. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to evaluate the risk of adverse events in patients with AHRF following the three biopsy techniques. Our secondary objectives were to assess the diagnostic yield and associated modifications of patient management of each technique. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing TBLC, TBLB, and SLB in mechanically ventilated patients with AHRF. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with at least one complication, and secondary outcomes included complication rates, diagnostic yields, treatment modifications, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 26 patients who underwent lung biopsies from 2018 to 2022, all TBLC and SLB patients and 60% of TBLB patients had at least one complication. TBLC patients had higher unadjusted numbers of total and severe complications, but also worse Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and P/F ratios. A total of 25 biopsies (25/26, 96%) provided histopathological diagnoses, 88% (22/25) of which contributed to patient management. ICU mortality was high for all modalities (63% for TBLC, 60% for TBLB and 50% for SLB). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: All biopsy methods had high diagnostic yields and the great majority contributed to patient management; however, complication rates were elevated. Further research is needed to determine which patients may benefit from lung biopsies and to determine the best biopsy modality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".