No abstract

Background The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is variable, and partly dependent upon rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) by a cytopathologist. Second generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are being increasingly used to obtain core histological tissue samples. Aims Studies comparing the diagnostic yield of EUS guided FNA versus FNB have reached conflicting conclusions. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic yield of FNA with FNB, and specifically evaluating the diagnostic value of ROSE while comparing the two types of needles. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 April 2016 to identify studies comparing diagnostic yield of second generation FNB needles with standard FNA needles. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes of interest (diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal quality histological cores obtained). Standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables (number of passes required for diagnosis). These were pooled using random effects model of meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of ROSE on various outcomes of interest. Results Fifteen studies with a total of 1024 patients were included in the analysis. We found no significant difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.98 (0.91, 1.06), (I 2 = 51 %)]. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.06), by meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy. For solid pancreatic lesions only, there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.96 (0.86, 1.09), (I 2 = 66 %)]. By meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy [RR 0.99 (0.95, 1.03), (I 2 = 27 %)] or optimal quality core histological sample procurement [RR 0.97 (0.89, 1.05), (I 2 = 9.6 %)]. However, FNB established diagnosis with fewer passes [SMD 0.93 (0.45, 1.42), (I 2 = 84 %)]. The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD, i. e., in the presence of an onsite pathologist, FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB, when FNA is accompanied by ROSE. However, in the absence of ROSE, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions. Also, FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis.

No abstract

There is burgeoning interest in the utilization of covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs) for managing benign biliary stricture (BBS). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated cumulative stricture resolution and recurrence rates using CSEMSs and compared performance of CSEMSs and multiple plastic stents (MPS) in BBS management. Searches in several databases identified studies including ≥ 10 patients that utilized CSEMSs for BBS treatment. Weighted pooled rates were calculated for stricture resolution and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing CSEMSs with MPS were calculated for stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, and adverse events. Pooled difference in means was calculated to compare number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) in each group. The meta-analysis included 22 studies with 1298 patients. Weighted pooled rate for BBS resolution with CSEMS was 83 % (95 % confidence limits [95 %CLs] 78 %, 87 %; = 72 %). On meta-regression analysis, resolution in chronic pancreatitis patients and post-orthotopic liver transplant patients were significant predictors of heterogeneity. Weighted pooled rate for stricture recurrence with CSEMSs was 16 % (11 %, 22 %). Overall rate of adverse events requiring intervention and/or hospitalization was 15 %. Four randomized controlled trials with 213 patients compared CSEMSs with MPS: the pooled RRs for stricture resolution, recurrence, and adverse events were 1.07 (0.97, 1.18), 0.88 (0.48, 1.63), and 1.16 (0.71, 1.88), respectively with no heterogeneity. Pooled difference in means for number of ERCPs was - 1.71 ( - 2.33, - 1.09) in favor of CSEMS.CSEMSs appear to have excellent efficacy in BBS management. They are as effective as MPS but require fewer ERCPs to achieve clinical success.

Severity or extent of CAD does not impact post-LT survival, if appropriately revascularized. Early postoperative cardiac events are associated with inferior survival in LT recipients, irrespective of underlying CAD.