Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Early View
  • Archive
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Performance and safety of diagnostic procedures in superior vena cava syndrome

Catherine Boily-Daoust, Alexandre Plante, Cedrick Adam, Marc Fortin
ERJ Open Research 2021 7: 00392-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00392-2020
Catherine Boily-Daoust
Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: boilydaoust.c@gmail.com
Alexandre Plante
Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Alexandre Plante
Cedrick Adam
Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marc Fortin
Dept of Pulmonary Medicine, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Standard bronchoscopy and EBUS-TBNA have good diagnostic yield and are relatively safe procedures in the setting of SVCS. However, complications may arise from the underlying malignancy and its proximity to central vital structures. https://bit.ly/37HXFUY

To the Editor:

Superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS) is an uncommon condition resulting from extrinsic compression or intraluminal blockade of the superior vena cava. The increased upper body venous pressure results in distended subcutaneous vessels and oedema of the head, neck and arms. SVCS can be a medical emergency if associated with laryngeal or cerebral oedema. The most common SVCS aetiologies are intrathoracic malignancies, accounting for 60 to 86% of cases [1–3].

Promptly obtaining a tissue diagnosis before performing therapeutic interventions is the preferred approach in most cases [3, 4] as the majority of patients present without a prior cancer diagnosis [5]. Invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopy and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), may be required to obtain a histological diagnosis. Rigid bronchoscopy may also be indicated in cases of concomitant malignant central airway obstruction [6]. Endoscopic procedures are generally performed in the recumbent position, increasing intracranial pressure [7, 8], and could potentially increase the risk of complications in a population presenting subclinical cerebral oedema. Impaired venous return may also cause vascular congestion of the airway leading to an increased bleeding risk [9–11]. Impaired venous return may be further decreased in the supine position [12] with a potential for haemodynamic consequences, especially in the context of the sedations administered [10, 13, 14].

The performance and safety of endoscopic procedures in SVCS patients has not been well studied [9, 15–20]. The objectives of the present study are to evaluate the safety and performance of different diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in SVCS, with a particular focus on endoscopic procedures.

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a diagnosis of SVCS in our institution from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017. We included all patients with a superior vena cava occlusion on contrast computed tomography (CT) scan, including those who were initially asymptomatic. Patients were included if they were older than 18 years old and had a diagnostic or a therapeutic procedure, including standard bronchoscopy, EBUS-TBNA, transthoracic needle biopsy (TNB) and rigid bronchoscopy.

SVCS severity was stratified according to the grading system described by Yu et al. [4]. Central airway lumen obstruction was measured on CT scan as the ratio of the most narrowed point of the involved airway (trachea or main bronchi) versus its estimated normal diameter, and was considered significant if >50%. The presence of an association between SVCS severity or central airway obstruction and procedural complications was explored.

Bronchoscopies and EBUS-TBNA were performed under conscious sedation using fentanyl and midazolam in the recumbent position, whereas rigid bronchoscopies were performed under general anaesthesia. Minor complications, comprising mainly minor haemorrhages and hypoxaemias, were respectively defined as bleedings requiring local treatments and hypoxaemia extending more than 1 hour after the procedure. Complications were considered as major if they led to an escalation of care.

Forty-three patients underwent 73 procedures. Diagnostic procedures included 16 bronchoscopies, 23 EBUS-TBNA and 9 TNB. Nineteen bronchoscopies were performed for nondiagnostic purposes, including anatomic evaluation before stent placement (n=3, 15.8%), stent revision (n=8, 42.1%) and bronchial cleaning (n=8, 42.1%). Six therapeutic bronchoscopies were performed, including five for stent placement and one for tumour debulking.

Mean age was 57.2 (±16.0) years and the vast majority of patients had a malignant diagnosis (n=40, 93%), the most frequent being nonsmall cell lung cancer (n=23, 53.5%). Twelve (19%) endoscopic procedures were performed when the SVCS severity score was elevated (≥3/4) and 22 (40%) when the central airway lumen was obstructed >50%. Mean procedural time for EBUS-TBNA, diagnostic and therapeutic bronchoscopy were 18.0 (±4.9), 13.1 (±6.8) and 52.3 min (±48.9), respectively.

Diagnostic yield of bronchoscopy, EBUS-TBNA and TNB were 81.3%, 87.0 and 100.0%, respectively. Regarding EBUS-TBNA, 31 stations were sampled in 23 patients (average 1.3 stations ±0.6 per patient). Either the primary lesion or the 4R station were sampled in 20 (87%) patients.

There were no complications following TNB. Minor complications were reported in eight (13%) endoscopic procedures, four (6%) haemorrhages requiring topical treatments and six (9%) transient hypoxaemias extending more than 1 hour after the procedure but not requiring escalation of care (table 1). Two procedures were associated with two complications. There were significantly more transient hypoxaemias following EBUS compared to standard bronchoscopies (5 (21.7%) versus 1 (2.9%), p=0.03).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Procedural complications

Three patients suffered major complications, two of which occurred during therapeutic bronchoscopies. One patient with a tracheoesophageal fistula developed a tension pneumothorax during positive pressure ventilation. Another patient with a tracheal tumour could not be ventilated or intubated following general anaesthesia induction and needed an emergency cricotomy. The third patient developed haemodynamically unstable atrial fibrillation during a standard bronchoscopy, in the setting of a neoplastic pericardial effusion. No deaths related to the complications were recorded.

SVCS severity or presence of significant central airway obstruction were not associated with more frequent complications. There were three (25%) minor complications in procedures performed with a SVCS score ≥3/4 compared to five (9.6%) amongst procedures with a SVCS score ≤2/4 (p=0.70) and there were four (18.3%) minor complications in procedures performed with a central airway obstruction >50% compared to four (12.1%) in those with a lesser degree of airway obstruction (p=0.16).

Timely establishment of a histological diagnosis is required in order to provide optimal treatment for patients with SVCS. In our cohort, endoscopic procedures and TNB proved to have a good diagnostic yield in patients with SVCS, which is consistent with existing literature [16, 18, 19].

The mean procedural time for EBUS-TBNA (18.7±20.4 min) was consistent with the mean procedural time reported in the literature for EBUS-TBNA performed for various indications under conscious sedation [21]. No major complications were observed with EBUS-TBNA, even if 87% patients had punctures in the vicinity of their compressed superior vena cava. Our results suggest that EBUS-TBNA in the setting of SVCS is safe.

Minor complications during endoscopic procedures, consisting of bleeding requiring topical treatments and transient hypoxaemia were not uncommon, but did not alter patient trajectory.

Minor adverse events occurred in 8.6% of flexible bronchoscopies, which is consistent with other series [22–25]. The EBUS-TBNA complications rate observed in our series (21.7%) may seem higher than in previous reports. The systematic review by von Bartheld et al. [26] looked at 16 181 patients and reported an overall complication rates (minor and serious adverse events) of 0.35% for EBUS-TBNA and endoscopic ultrasound, whereas the American College of Chest Physicians Quality Improvement Registry, Evaluation and Education (AQuIRE) reported an EBUS-TBNA complication rate of 1.44% [27]. This difference can be explained by the different definitions, mainly the definition of hypoxaemia, used for complications leading to the inclusion of events that would not have been included in previous studies.

Finally, we observed complications in two of six (33.3%) therapeutic procedures, which seems higher than what was reported in previous studies [28–33]). We previously reported in a multicentric retrospective study, a 6.7% rate of nonlethal complications and the AQuIRE registry reported a complication rate of 3.9% [30]. However, the limited samples of the subgroup analysis prevented any firm conclusions.

Major complications occurred in three endoscopic procedures (4.7%), including two therapeutic bronchoscopies. We feel that major complications in our cohort were not directly related to the SVCS itself, but rather to the underlying malignancy and its proximity to central vital structures. Similarly, Schraufnagel and colleagues [5] reported no complication from the superior vena cava obstruction itself nor the procedures, but rather from other tumour-associated complications, such as cardiac tamponade or airway obstruction.

In conclusion, TNB, standard bronchoscopy and EBUS-TBNA have good diagnostic yield and are relatively safe procedures in the setting of SVCS. However, when selecting the best diagnostic procedure, clinicians should bear in mind the comorbid conditions associated with central lesions.

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: C. Boily-Daoust has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Plante has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: C. Adam has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: M. Fortin has nothing to disclose.

  • Received June 16, 2020.
  • Accepted October 19, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2021
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Wilson LD,
    2. Detterbeck FC,
    3. Yahalom J
    . Superior vena cava syndrome with malignant causes. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1862–1869. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp067190
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Cheng S
    . Superior vena cava syndrome: a contemporary review of a historic disease. Cardiol Rev 2009; 17: 16–23. doi:10.1097/CRD.0b013e318188033c
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Straka C,
    2. Ying J,
    3. Kong FM, et al.
    Review of evolving etiologies, implications and treatment strategies for the superior vena cava syndrome. Springerplus 2016; 5: 229. doi:10.1186/s40064-016-1900-7
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Yu JB,
    2. Wilson LD,
    3. Detterbeck FC
    . Superior vena cava syndrome—a proposed classification system and algorithm for management. J Thorac Oncol 2008; 3: 811–814. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181804791
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Schraufnagel DE,
    2. Hill R,
    3. Leech JA, et al.
    Superior vena caval obstruction. Is it a medical emergency? Am J Med 1981; 70: 1169–1174. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(81)90823-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Jung B,
    2. Murgu S,
    3. Colt H
    . Rigid bronchoscopy for malignant central airway obstruction from small cell lung cancer complicated by SVC syndrome. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 17: 53–57. doi:10.5761/atcs.cr.09.01480
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Kerwin AJ,
    2. Croce MA,
    3. Timmons SD, et al.
    Effects of fiberoptic bronchoscopy on intracranial pressure in patients with brain injury: a prospective clinical study. J Trauma 2000; 48: 878–882. doi:10.1097/00005373-200005000-00011
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Peerless JR,
    2. Snow N,
    3. Likavec MJ, et al.
    The effect of fiberoptic bronchoscopy on cerebral hemodynamics in patients with severe head injury. Chest 1995; 108: 962–965. doi:10.1378/chest.108.4.962
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Carr IM,
    2. Koegelenberg CF,
    3. von Groote-Bidlingmaier F, et al.
    Blood loss during flexible bronchoscopy: a prospective observational study. Respiration 2012; 84: 312–318. doi:10.1159/000339507
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Chaudhary K,
    2. Gupta A,
    3. Wadhawan S, et al.
    Anesthetic management of superior vena cava syndrome due to anterior mediastinal mass. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2012; 28: 242–246. doi:10.4103/0970-9185.94910
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Pullerits J,
    2. Holzman R
    . Anaesthesia for patients with mediastinal masses. Can J Anaesth 1989; 36: 681–688. doi:10.1007/BF03005421
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Mackie AM,
    2. Watson CB
    . Anaesthesia and mediastinal masses. A case report and review of the literature. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 899–903. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb06579.x
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Massullo D,
    2. Di Benedetto P,
    3. Pinto G
    . Intraoperative strategy in patients with extended involvement of mediastinal structures. Thorac Surg Clin 2009; 19: 113–120. doi:10.1016/j.thorsurg.2008.09.009
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Narang S,
    2. Harte BH,
    3. Body SC
    . Anesthesia for patients with a mediastinal mass. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2001; 18: 559–579. doi:10.1016/S0889-8537(05)70247-9
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Ahmann FR
    . A reassessment of the clinical implications of the superior vena caval syndrome. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 961–969. doi:10.1200/JCO.1984.2.8.961
    OpenUrlAbstract
  15. ↵
    1. Wong MK,
    2. Tam TC,
    3. Lam DC, et al.
    EBUS-TBNA in patients presented with superior vena cava syndrome. Lung Cancer 2012; 77: 277–280. doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.03.015
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Lee D,
    2. Moon SM,
    3. Kim D, et al.
    Lung cancer with superior vena cava syndrome diagnosed by intravascular biopsy using EBUS-TBNA. Respir Med Case Rep 2016; 19: 177–180.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Zhou ZL,
    2. Zhao H,
    3. Li Y, et al.
    Diagnostic value of endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration in superior vena cava syndrome. Chin Med J 2013; 126: 4453–4456.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Selçuk ZT,
    2. Firat P
    . The diagnostic yield of transbronchial needle aspiration in superior vena cava syndrome. Lung Cancer 2003; 42: 183–188. doi:10.1016/S0169-5002(03)00293-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Brundyn K,
    2. Koegelenberg CF,
    3. Diacon AH, et al.
    Transbronchial fine needle aspiration biopsy and rapid on-site evaluation in the setting of superior vena cava syndrome. Diagn Cytopathol 2013; 41: 324–329. doi:10.1002/dc.21857
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Casal RF,
    2. Lazarus DR,
    3. Kuhl K, et al.
    Randomized trial of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration under general anesthesia versus moderate sedation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 191: 796–803. doi:10.1164/rccm.201409-1615OC
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Leiten EO,
    2. Martinsen EM,
    3. Bakke PS, et al.
    Complications and discomfort of bronchoscopy: a systematic review. Eur Clin Respir J 2016; 3: 33324. doi:10.3402/ecrj.v3.33324
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Bechara R,
    2. Beamis J,
    3. Simoff M, et al.
    Practice and complications of flexible bronchoscopy with biopsy procedures. J Bronchol 2005; 12: 139–142. doi:10.1097/01.laboratory.0000164867.35411.f5
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Grendelmeier P,
    2. Kurer G,
    3. Pflimlin E, et al.
    Feasibility and safety of propofol sedation in flexible bronchoscopy. Swiss Med Wkly 2011; 141: w13248.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Hehn BT,
    2. Haponik E,
    3. Rubin HR, et al.
    The relationship between age and process of care and patient tolerance of bronchoscopy. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 917–922. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2389.2003.51303.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. von Bartheld MB,
    2. van Breda A,
    3. Annema JT
    . Complication rate of endosonography (endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound): a systematic review. Respiration 2014; 87: 343–351. doi:10.1159/000357066
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Eapen GA,
    2. Shah AM,
    3. Lei X, et al.
    Complications, consequences, and practice patterns of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: results of the AQuIRE registry. Chest 2013; 143: 1044–1053. doi:10.1378/chest.12-0350
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Stahl DL,
    2. Richard KM,
    3. Papadimos TJ
    . Complications of bronchoscopy: a concise synopsis. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2015; 5: 189–195. doi:10.4103/2229-5151.164995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Fortin M,
    2. Yarmus L,
    3. Rendina EA, et al.
    Multi-institutional retrospective analysis of adverse events following rigid tracheobronchoscopy. Respirology 2021; 26: 87–91. doi:10.1111/resp.13873
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Ost DE,
    2. Ernst A,
    3. Grosu HB, et al.
    Therapeutic bronchoscopy for malignant central airway obstruction: success rates and impact on dyspnea and quality of life. Chest 2015; 147: 1282–1298. doi:10.1378/chest.14-1526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Drummond M,
    2. Magalhães A,
    3. Hespanhol V, et al.
    Rigid bronchoscopy complications in a university hospital. J Bronchol 2003; 10: 177–182. doi:10.1097/00128594-200307000-00003
    OpenUrl
    1. Perrin G,
    2. Colt HG,
    3. Martin C, et al.
    Safety of interventional rigid bronchoscopy using intravenous anesthesia and spontaneous assisted ventilation. A prospective study. Chest 1992; 102: 1526–1530. doi:10.1378/chest.102.5.1526
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Manalan K,
    2. Ryan K,
    3. Basheer H
    . An audit review of safety and complication rates, of rigid bronchoscopy and large airways intervention, in a London tertiary centre. Eur Respir J 2018; 52: Suppl. 62, PA1748. doi:10.1183/13993003.CONGRESS-2018.PA1748
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Vol 7 Issue 1 Table of Contents
ERJ Open Research: 7 (1)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Performance and safety of diagnostic procedures in superior vena cava syndrome
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Performance and safety of diagnostic procedures in superior vena cava syndrome
Catherine Boily-Daoust, Alexandre Plante, Cedrick Adam, Marc Fortin
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00392-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00392-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Performance and safety of diagnostic procedures in superior vena cava syndrome
Catherine Boily-Daoust, Alexandre Plante, Cedrick Adam, Marc Fortin
ERJ Open Research Jan 2021, 7 (1) 00392-2020; DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00392-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Pulmonary vascular disease
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • rs2070600 SNP regulates AGER splicing and sputum sRAGE
  • Procoagulant microparticles and COVID-19
  • Cancer referral and interventional pulmonology during COVID-19
Show more Original research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About ERJ Open Research

  • Editorial board
  • Journal information
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Online ISSN: 2312-0541

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society