Funding informationDr Marcel Razpotnik received for the cirrhotic cardiomyopathy project a promotional award for young investigators from the Austrian Society of Ultrasonography (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin -ÖGUM).

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of endosonographer experience and patient-related factors on the dose of sedation and sedation-related complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Methods Our retrospective analysis included EUS investigations performed between 2015 and 2018 at our institution. Sedation-related complications were defined as cardiorespiratory instability with oxygen saturation drop below 90% or prolonged low blood pressure or bradycardia. Results In total, 537 EUS examinations were analyzed (37.3% interventional). The median dose of propofol and midazolam were: 140 (30-570) and 3(1-7) mg, respectively. Sedation-related complications were documented in 1.8% of cases. All patients had transient, nonfatal respiratory insufficiency. Totally, 60% of the patients who developed complications were >75 years and 70% were male. The presence of cardiac and/or pulmonary comorbidities was associated with an OR = 8.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.8-41.7] and American Society of Anesthesiologists class III with an OR = 7.64 (95% CI, 1.60-36.3) for the occurrence of sedation-related complications. Endosonographer experience did not influence the rate of sedation-related complications. In both diagnostic and interventional EUS, patients with comorbidities and older age received significantly less sedation. Experienced endosonographers used less sedation than trainees. Conclusion Endosonographer experience, patient age and the presence of comorbidities had a significant influence on sedation dose. Sedation-related complications occurred only in 1.8% of cases.

Background/Aims: Endosonography is associated with a long learning curve. We aimed to assess variables that may influence the diagnostic outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) of solid pancreatic tumors regarding the level of endoscopists' experience.Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided puncture of solid pancreatic tumors (eight endosonographers, including six trainees) were prospectively enrolled. An experienced endosonographer was defined as having performed at least 250 EUS examinations, including 75 FNA/Bs. The final diagnosis was determined by cytopathology, histopathology, or clinical followup. Results:In total, 283 EUS-FNA/Bs of solid pancreatic tumors (75.6% malignant) in 239 patients (median age 69 years, 57.6% males) were enrolled. Trainees performed 149/283 (52.7%) of the interventions. Accuracy and sensitivity for detecting malignancy were significantly higher in the expert group than in the trainee group (85.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.01 and 82.5% vs 68.4%, p=0.02). Solid lesions evaluated by an expert using FNB needles showed the best odds for a correct diagnosis (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 8.23; p=0.02). More experienced endoscopists achieved better accuracy in sampling via the transduodenal approach (86.7% vs 68.5%, p<0.001), in the sampling of malignant lesions (82.5 vs 68.4, p=0.02), and in the sampling of lesions located in the pancreatic head (86.1 vs 69.1, p=0.02). In cases involving these factors, we observed a moderate improvement in the diagnostic accuracy after 40 attempts. Conclusions:Transduodenal approach, pancreatic head lesions, and malignancy were recognized as the most important clinical factors affecting the learning curve in EUS-FNA/B of solid pancreatic lesions.

No abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a very sensitive examination to detect pancreatic masses and can provide useful information in cases where conventional radiologic workup remains inconclusive. We present three cases in which EUS was decisive in establishing the correct diagnosis. Case 1: A 74-year-old female was hospitalized because of acute pancreatitis. Medical history, CT and MRI gave no clue to etiology, but EUS diagnosed a small pancreatic tumor. Case 2: A female patient was admitted because of abdominal pain and weight loss. While MRI suspected a pancreatic tumor, EUS showed typical features of autoimmune pancreatitis. Case 3: A 50-year-old patient was hospitalized with cachexia, ascites and pulmonary embolism. At first, a pancreatic tumor was suspected, but EUS showed a cystic lesion with a solid component (pancreatic pseudocyst).

No abstract