No abstract

Background: To overcome limitations of cytology, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histologic samples during EUS. Objective: To compare 22-gauge (G) FNA and 22G biopsy needles (FNB) for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses. Design: Randomized trial. Setting: Tertiary-care medical center. Patients: This study involved 56 patients with solid pancreatic masses. Intervention: Sampling of pancreatic masses by using 22G FNA or 22G FNB devices. Main Outcome Measurements: Compare the median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis, diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, complication rates, procurement of the histologic core, and quality of the histologic specimen. Results: A total of 28 patients were randomized to the FNA group and 28 to the FNB group. There was no significant difference in median number of passes required to establish the diagnosis (1 [interquartile range 1-2.5] vs 1 [interquartile range 1-1]; P = .21), rates of diagnostic sufficiency (100% vs 89.3%; P = .24), technical failure (0 vs 3.6%; P = 1.0), or complications (3.6% for both) between FNA and FNB needles, respectively. Patients in whom diagnosis was established in passes 1, 2, and 3 were 64.3% versus 67.9%, 10.7% versus 17.9%, and 25% versus 3.6%, respectively, for FNA and FNB cohorts. There was no significant difference in procurement of the histologic core (100% vs 83.3%; P = .26) or the presence of diagnostic histologic specimens (66.7% vs 80%; P = .66) between FNA and FNB cohorts, respectively. Limitations: Only pancreatic masses were evaluated. Conclusion: Diagnostic sufficiency, technical performance, and safety profiles of FNA and FNB needles are comparable. There was no significant difference in yield or quality of the histologic core between the 2 needle types. (Clinical trial registration number: AQ:NCT01394159.) (Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:321-7.)

Background and study aims The fanning technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS–FNA) involves sampling multiple areas within a lesion with each pass. The aim of this study was to compare the fanning and standard techniques for EUS–FNA of solid pancreatic masses. Patients and methods Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions were randomized to undergo EUS–FNA using either the standard or the fanning technique. The main outcome measure was the median number of passes required to establish diagnosis. The secondary outcome measures were the diagnostic accuracy, technical failure, and complication rate of the two techniques. Results Of 54 patients, 26were randomized to the standard technique and 28 to the fanning technique. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy (76.9% vs. 96.4 %; P=0.05), technical failure or complication rates (none in either cohort). There was a significant difference in both the number of passes required to establish diagnosis (median 1 [interquartile range 1–3] vs. 1 [1–1]; P=0.02) and the percentage of patients in whom a diagnosis was achieved on pass one (57.7% vs. 85.7 %; P = 0.02) between the standard and fanning groups, respectively. Conclusions The fanning technique of FNA was superior to the standard approach because fewer passes were required to establish the diagnosis. If these promising data are confirmed by other investigators, consideration should be given to incorporating the fanning technique into routine practice of EUS–FNA.

Background Treatment outcomes are suboptimal for patients undergoing endoscopic treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). The objective of this study is to identify factors that impact treatment outcomes in this patient subset. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients with WOPN treated endoscopically over 10 years. Patients underwent placement of stents and nasocystic catheters within the necrotic cavity. In select patients, the multiple transluminal gateway technique (MTGT) was adopted to create several openings in the stomach or duodenum to facilitate drainage of necrosis. In patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS), the transmural stents were left in place indefinitely to decrease pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) recurrence. Results Endoscopic treatment was successful in 53 of 76 (69.7%) patients. Treatment success was higher in patients undergoing MTGT than in those in whom conventional drainage was used (94.4% vs 62.1%, P = 0.009). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only MTGT (OR 15.8, 95% CI 1.77–140.8; P = 0.01) and fewer endoscopic sessions being needed (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.16–14.0; P = 0.03) predicted treatment success. PFC recurrence was significantly lower in patients with indwelling transmural stents than in patients in whom the stents were removed (0 vs 20.8%; P = 0.02). Conclusions Creating multiple gateways for drainage of necrotic debris improves treatment success, and not removing the transmural stents decreases PFC recurrence in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of WOPN.

Transpapillary PD stenting improves treatment outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic transmural drainage of PFC.