Efficacy and Safety of Cryobiopsy vs. Forceps Biopsy for Interstitial Lung Diseases, Lung Tumors, and Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundCryobiopsy has emerged as a novel alternative to conventional forceps biopsy for the diagnosis of interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), lung tumors, and peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). This study aims to compare cryobiopsy and forceps biopsy for the diagnosis of these lung pathologies with respect to efficacy and safety by performing a meta-analysis of updated evidence.MethodsA number of databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, OVID, CNKI, and Wanfang database, were searched for eligible studies. Randomized and non-randomized comparative studies investigating the efficacy and safety of cryobiopsy vs. forceps biopsy for lung pathologies were included. Pooled results were calculated as an odds ratio (OR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI.ResultsA total of 39 studies, such as 9 RCTs with 3,586 biopsies (1,759 cryobiopsies and 1,827 flexible forceps biopsies) were analyzed. Cryobiopsy was associated with a significant increase in the diagnostic rates of ILDs (OR, 4.29; 95% CI, 1.85–9.93; p < 0.01), lung tumors (OR, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.60–4.93; p < 0.01), and PPLs (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.23–2.34; p < 0.01). Cryobiopsy yielded significantly larger specimens compared with flexible forceps biopsy (SMD, 3.06; 95% CI, 2.37–3.74; p < 0.01). The cryobiopsy group had a significantly higher (moderate to severe) bleeding risk than the forceps group (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.48–3.19; p < 0.01). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of pneumothorax between the groups (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.44–1.85; p = 0.78).ConclusionOur results demonstrate that cryobiopsy is a safe and efficacious alternative to conventional forceps biopsy.