Endovenous laser ablation of the SSV has excellent early and midterm results. The prevalence of thrombosis and paresthesia is very low. Symptom relief is very good.
Background and study aims: Whether there is an advantage in using the wet-suction (WS) or slow-pull (SP) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new generation needles is unknown. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB performed with WS versus SP technique.
Patients and methods: Multicenter, randomized, single-blind, cross-over trial including patients with solid lesions ≥1cm. Four needle passes with 22G Fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating WS and SP technique in a randomized order. The primary aim was the histologic yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550μm). Secondary endpoints were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction.
Results: Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4%) and 129 (61.4%) cases using the WS and the SP, respectively (p=0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using the WS (p=0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (p<0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but with higher blood contamination with the WS. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the compared techniques.
Conclusion: Overall, the WS technique in EUS-FNB allows a higher tissue core rate procurement compared with SP. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.
Clinicaltrial.gov, number NCT04834193.
Background and Objectives:
There is no clear evidence of a negative impact of biliary stents on the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for diagnosing pancreatic head lesions. We aimed to evaluate the association between the presence of biliary stents and the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB.
Materials and Methods:
A multicenter retrospective study including all jaundiced patients secondary to pancreatic head masses was performed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence of a biliary stent placed before EUS-FNB. Pathological results were classified according to the Papanicolaou classification and compared against the final diagnosis. Diagnostic measures in the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analyses including potential factors affecting EUS-FNB accuracy were performed.
Results:
Overall, 842 patients were included, 495 (58.8%) without and 347 (41.2%) with biliary stent. A plastic or a metal stent was placed in 217 (62.5%) and 130 (37.5%) cases, respectively. Diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were significantly higher in patients without biliary stent than in those with stent (91.9% and 92.1%
vs
. 85.9% and 86.4%,
P
= 0.010 At multivariate analyses, lesion size (odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02–1.09,
P
= 0.01) and presence of biliary stent (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.32–0.89,
P
= 0.01) were independently associated with diagnostic accuracy. In the subgroup of patients with biliary stent, the type of stent (plastic
vs
. metal) did not impact EUS-FNB yield, whereas the use of larger bore needles enhanced diagnostic accuracy (OR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.28–4.12,
P
= 0.005).
Conclusions:
In this large retrospective study, an indwelling biliary stent negatively impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB. Preferably, EUS-FNB should precede endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, especially in the case of small tumors.
OTSC placement should be attempted after perforation occurring during diagnostic or therapeutic endoscopy. A failed closure attempt does not impair subsequent surgical treatment.
Background and study aims Feasibility of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using available lumen-apposing stents (LAMS) is limited by the size of the common bile duct (CBD) (≤ 12 mm, cut-off for experts; 15 mm, cut-off for non-experts). We aimed to assess the prevalence and predictive factors associated with CBD size ≥ 12 and 15 mm in naïve patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).
Patients and methods This was a prospective cohort study involving 22 centers with assessment of CBD diameter and subjective feasibility of the EUS-CDS performance in naïve jaundiced patients undergoing EUS evaluation for MDBO.
Results A total of 491 patients (mean age 69 ± 12 years) with mean serum bilirubin of 12.7 ± 6.6 mg/dL entered the final analysis. Dilation of the CBD ≥ 12 and 15 mm was detected in 78.8 % and 51.9 % of cases, respectively. Subjective feasibility of EUS-CDS was expressed by endosonographers in 91.2 % for a CBD ≥ 12 mm and in 96.5 % for a CBD ≥ 15 mm. On multivariate analysis, age (P < 0.01) and bilirubin level (P ≤ 0.001) were the only factors associated with both CBD dilation ≥ 12 and ≥ 15 mm. These variables were poorly associated with the extent of duct dilation; however, based on them a prediction model could be constructed that satisfactorily predicted CBD size ≥ 12 mm in patients at least 70 years and a bilirubin level ≥ 7 mg/dL.
Conclusions Our study showed that at presentation in a large cohort of patients with MDBO, EUS-CDS can be potentially performed in three quarters to half of cases by expert and less experienced endosonographers, respectively. Dedicated stents or devices with different designs able to overcome the limitations of existing electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-CDS are needed.
This case emphasizes the need of close surveillance even in the late postoperative course of these patients. Moreover, this rare event confirmed that endovascular techniques can play an important role in treating emergent complications.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.