Autologous Blood Patch Injection versus Hydrogel Plug in CT-guided Lung Biopsy: A Prospective Randomized Trial.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
-
Purpose To compare the effect of autologous blood patch injection (ABPI) with that of a hydrogel plug on the rate of pneumothorax at CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy. Materials and Methods In this prospective randomized controlled trial ( https://ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02224924), a noninferiority design was used for ABPI, with a 10% noninferiority margin when compared with the hydrogel plug, with the primary outcome of pneumothorax rate within 2 hours of biopsy. A type I error rate of 0.05 and 90% power were specified with a target study population of 552 participants (276 in each arm). From October 2014 to February 2017, all potential study participants referred for CT-guided lung biopsy (n = 2052) were assessed for enrollment. Results The data safety monitoring board recommended the trial be closed to accrual after an interim analysis met prespecified criteria for early stopping based on noninferiority. The final study group consisted of 453 participants who were randomly assigned to the ABPI (n = 226) or hydrogel plug (n = 227) arms. Of these, 407 underwent lung biopsy. Pneumothorax rates within 2 hours of biopsy were 21% (42 of 199) and 29% (60 of 208); chest tube rates were 9% (18 of 199) and 13% (27 of 208); and delayed pneumothorax rates within 2 weeks after biopsy were 1.4% (three of 199) and 1.5% (three of 208) in the ABPI and hydrogel plug arms, respectively. Conclusion Autologous blood patch injection is noninferior to a hydrogel plug regarding the rate of pneumothorax after CT-guided percutaneous lung biopsy. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
publication date
published in
Research
keywords
-
Biological Therapy
-
Hydrogels
-
Image-Guided Biopsy
-
Lung
-
Pneumothorax
Identity
PubMed Central ID
Scopus Document Identifier
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
-
10.1148/radiol.2018181140
PubMed ID
Additional Document Info
has global citation frequency
volume
issue