Safety and Costs of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Nodal Aspiration and Mediastinoscopy.

<bold>Background: </bold>There remains debate over the best invasive diagnostic modality for mediastinal nodal evaluation. Prior studies have limited generalizability and insufficient power to detect differences in rare adverse events. We compared the risks and costs of endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided nodal aspiration and mediastinoscopy performed for any indication in a large national cohort.<bold>Methods: </bold>We conducted a retrospective study (2007-2015) with MarketScan, a claims database of individuals with employer-provided insurance in the United States. Patients who underwent multimodality mediastinal evaluation (n = 1,396) or same-day pulmonary resection (n = 2,130) were excluded. Regression models were used to evaluate associations between diagnostic modalities and risks and costs while adjusting for patient characteristics, year, concomitant bronchoscopic procedures, and lung cancer diagnosis.<bold>Results: </bold>Among 30,570 patients, 49% underwent EBUS. Severe adverse events-pneumothorax, hemothorax, airway/vascular injuries, or death-were rare and invariant between EBUS and mediastinoscopy (0.3% vs 0.4%; P = .189). The rate of vocal cord paralysis was lower for EBUS (1.4% vs 2.2%; P < .001). EBUS was associated with a lower adjusted risk of severe adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32-0.55) and vocal cord paralysis (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.54-0.60). The mean cost of EBUS was $2,211 less than mediastinoscopy ($6,816 vs $9,023; P < .001). After adjustment this difference decreased to $1,650 (95% CI, $1,525-$1,776).<bold>Conclusions: </bold>When performed as isolated procedures, EBUS is associated with lower risks and costs compared with mediastinoscopy. Future studies comparing the effectiveness of EBUS vs mediastinoscopy in the community at large will help determine which procedure is superior or if trade-offs exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]