Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA

Early, Dayna S.; Acosta, Ruben D.; Chandrasekhara, Vinay; Chathadi, Krishnavel V.; Decker, G. Anton; Evans, John A.; Fanelli, Robert D.; Fisher, Deborah A.; Fonkalsrud, Lisa; Hwang, Joo Ha; Jue, Terry L.; Khashab, Mouen A.; Lightdale, Jenifer R.; Muthusamy, V. Raman; Pasha, Shabana F.; Saltzman, John R.; Sharaf, Ravi; Shergill, Amandep K.; Cash, Brooks D.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.02.018

Cited by 191 publications

(108 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prospective studies in patients undergoing EUSguided FNA (EUS-FNA) of cystic or solid lesions along the upper GI tract indicate a low prevalence of procedure-related bacteremia, ranging from 4.0% to 5.8%. [24][25][26][27] Similarly, EUS-FNA of solid rectal and perirectal lesions is associated with a low risk of bacteremia, with 1 study reporting a risk of 2%. 28 Bacteremia associated with routine daily activity Transient bacteremia occurs frequently during routine daily activity, often at rates exceeding those associated with endoscopic procedures.…”

Section: Procedures Associated With a High Risk Of Bacteremiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

Khashab¹,

Chithadi²,

Acosta³

et al. 2015

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Self Cite

326

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Procedures Associated With a High Risk Of Bacteremiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

Khashab¹,

Chithadi²,

Acosta³

et al. 2015

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Self Cite

326

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Acute pancreatitis related with EUS-FNA procedure ranges from 0% to 2%. Importantly, this pancreatitis as a result of EUS-FNA procedure arises in patients undergoing FNA of pancreatic cysts, masses, or pancreatic duct [16] . In the present study, the patient-related factors, baseline clinical presentation and severity of disease were similar in both groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain Score within Twenty-Four Hours Post-Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Comparison Between with or without Fine Needle Aspiration Procedure

Amornyotin

Saivaew

Vichitmala

2015

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIMS:To compare the pain score within twenty-four hours postendoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with or without fine needle aspiration (FNA) procedure in adult patients. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed the patients who underwent EUS procedures from January, 2009 to December, 2009. Pain score was compared by using verbal rating scale (VRS, 0-100) and pain rescued medications at 2, 6, 12, 18, 24 hours postprocedure. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four patients, 84 patients only with EUS procedure (group D) and 40 patients with EUS and FNA procedures (group F), were enrolled. All procedures were completed successfully. Sedative and analgesic agents in both groups were propofol, midazolam and fentanyl and were comparable the dose among the two groups. The mean procedural time in D and F was 39.8±19.1 and 60.6±26.0 minutes, respectively. Mean pain score at baseline and at 2, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours post-EUS was not significantly different between the two groups. Additionally, total dose of pethidine used for pain control after EUS procedure in both groups was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: EUS-induced abdominal pain is mild and mainly occurs within six hours after the procedure. Pain score within twenty-four hours after EUS with or without fine needle aspiration procedure is comparable.

show abstract

“…In this setting, despite negative results of previous imaging tests, diagnostic EUS could have a role in the identification of the etiology of dilatation (Figure 1) with a very low complication rate [37] . EUS combines endoscopy with real-time and high-resolution ultrasound providing excellent sonographic visualization of the extrahepatic biliary tree without interference of bowel gas, due to its ability to place the transducer in close proximity to the extrahepatic bile duct.…”

Section: Impact Of Eus In the Diagnostic Work Up Of Cbd Dilatationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Endoscopic ultrasound in common bile duct dilatation with normal liver enzymes

Angelis¹,

Marietti²,

Bruno³

et al. 2015

WJGE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the description of isolated bile duct dilatation has been increasingly observed in subjects with normal liver function tests and nonspecific abdominal symptoms, probably due to the widespread use of high-resolution imaging techniques. However, there is scant literature about the evolution of this condition and the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnostic work up. When noninvasive imaging tests (transabdominal ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) fail to identify the cause of dilatation and clinical or biochemical alarm signs are absent, the probability of having biliary disease is considered low. In this setting, using EUS, the presence of pathologic findings (choledocholithiasis, strictures, chronic pancreatitis, ampullary or pancreatic tumors, cholangiocarcinoma), not always with a benign course, has been observed. The aim of this review has been to evaluate the prevalence of disease among nonjaundiced patients without signs of cytolysis and/or cholestasis and the assessment of EUS yield. Data point out to a promising role of EUS in the identification of a potential biliary pathology. EUS is a low invasive technique, with high accuracy, that could play a double cost-effective role: identifying pathologic conditions with dismal prognosis, in asymptomatic patients with negative prior imaging tests, and excluding pathologic conditions and further follow-up in healthy subjects. Core tip: Common bile duct dilatation, often without identified causes, in subjects with normal liver function tests and nonspecific abdominal symptoms, and absence of lesions on prior noninvasive imaging tests, is increasingly found in the clinical practice. Since the clinical suspicion for biliary pathology in that setting is usually low, and there are limited literature data, this condition is ignored. However, recent evidences show the existence of pathologies among these patients, often with a non-benign course. In this scenario, endoscopic

show abstract

Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA

Cited by 191 publications

References 59 publications

Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

Pain Score within Twenty-Four Hours Post-Endoscopic Ultrasonography: A Comparison Between with or without Fine Needle Aspiration Procedure

Endoscopic ultrasound in common bile duct dilatation with normal liver enzymes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About