Background and study aims Traditionally in the case of a vascular interposition, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been contraindicated. A transvascular route (TV) is feasible and probably a safe alternative approach in selected patients, but data are scarce. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-TV-FNA in thoracic and abdominal lesions. Secondary aims included evaluation of the clinical impact and technical aspects. Patients and methods A retrospective multicenter study was conducted with inclusion of all consecutive patients that underwent EUS-TV-FNA from July 2007 to January 2020. Feasibility, cytopathology, procedure details, and safety were evaluated. Univariate analysis was performed to identify variables associated with incidents, cytopathological diagnosis, and clinical impact. Results Data were collected from a total of 49 cases and 50 EUS-TV-FNAs. The aorta (n = 19) and portal system (n = 17) were the most frequently punctured. The most frequent lesions were mediastinal lymph nodes (n = 13) and pancreatic tumors (n = 11). The diagnostic yield was 86 %, and there were nondiagnostic samples in seven cases. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88 % (95 %CI,0.74–0.96), 100 % (95 %CI,0.59–1), and 90 % (95 %CI,0.78–0.96), respectively. Only three incidents were detected: two mural hematomas and a self-limited bleeding of gastroduodenal artery. In most patients, there was a significant impact on clinical management (88 %). Arterial vessel and ASA-III had a trend with incidents (both, P < 0.08). Rapid on-site evlauation was found to be an independent predictor for obtaining a conclusive sample (OR 6.2; 95 %CI, 1.06–36.73, P < 0.04). Conclusions EUS-TV-FNA is feasible, seems to be safe, and can be recommended when no other targets are available, and the information obtained would impact on the clinical plan.

No abstract

EUS-guided anastomoses with LAMS have emerged as a therapeutic option for patients with obstruction of the digestive tract. However, the long-term permeability of these anastomoses remains unknown. Most of the published cases involve the gastric wall and experience in distal obstruction is limited to few case reports. We review our series of patients treated with LAMS for gastrointestinal obstruction and describe the technical success according to the anastomotic site and the long-term follow-up in those cases in which the stent migrated spontaneously or was removed. Out of 30 cases treated with LAMS, EUS-guided anastomosis did not involve the gastric wall in 6 patients. These procedures were technically more challenging as two failures were recorded (2/6, 33%) while technical success was achieved in 100% of the cases in which the stent was placed through the gastric wall. In two of the patients, one with entero-enteric and another with recto-colic anastomosis, stent removal after spontaneous displacement was followed by long term permeability of the EUS-guided anastomosis (172 and 234 days respectively). In a EUS-guided gastroenterostomy the stent was removed at 118 days, but closure of the fistula was confirmed 26 days later. Our experience suggests that LAMS placement between bowel loops is feasible and might allow the creation of an anastomosis with long-term patency. As compared to LAMS placement between bowel loops, when LAMS are placed through the gastric wall, removal of the LAMS seems to lead to closure of the fistula.

No abstract

No abstract