Project description:Background and objectivesSuccessful tract dilation is one of the most important steps to accomplish EUS-guided drainage. Although mechanical dilation is safer than electrocautery dilation, no dedicated mechanical dilator (MD) is currently available. Thus, we developed a new ultra-tapered MD for EUS-guided drainage. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and usefulness of this novel MD.Patients and methodsConsecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) or EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) at two centers were included in the study. Dilation of the needle tract was initially performed with a diathermic sheath or the ultra-tapered MD. Technical success and adverse events were assessed.ResultsSixty-four patients (mean age = 68.9 ± 13.8 years, 35 men) underwent EUS-HGS (49 patients) and EUS-PD (15 patients). Thirty-three patients were included in the cautery dilator (CD) group and 31 in the ultra-tapered MD group. Initial dilation of the puncture site was achieved in 95.3% (61/64): 97% (32/33) of the patients in the CD group and 93.3% (29/31) of the patients in the MD group (P < 0.05). Adverse events were observed in 14 patients: abdominal pain in 8 patients and bleeding in 6 patients at the puncture site. All bleedings occurred in the CD group and there was no patient in whom bleeding occurred after EUS intervention in the MD group (P = 0.04).ConclusionThe novel ultra-tapered MD designed for interventional EUS appears to be safe and useful as it reduced postprocedure bleeding with a high technical success rate compared with the conventional electrocautery dilator.

| S-EPMC6289009 | biostudies-literature

Single-session EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy using dedicated metal stents (with videos).

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8248308 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy versus single-incision with needle knife for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a randomized controlled trial.

Project description:Background and study aims EUS-FNA has suboptimal accuracy in diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs). EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and single-incision with needle knife (SINK) were proposed to increase accuracy of diagnosis. This study aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of EUS-FNB with SINK in patients with upper gastrointestinal SETs. Patients and methods All adult patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper gastrointestinal SETs ≥ 15 mm in size were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to undergo EUS-FNB or SINK. Lesions were sampled with a 22-gauge reverse beveled core needle in the EUS-FNB group and by a conventional needle-knife sphincterotome and biopsy forceps in the SINK group. Patients were blinded to the technique used. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, histological yield and procedure duration. Study enrollment was terminated early due to poor recruitment. Results A total of 56 patients (31 male (55.37 %); mean age, 67.41 ± 12.70 years) were randomized to either EUS-FNB (n = 26) or SINK (n = 30). Technical success was 96.15 % and 96.66 %, respectively. The majority of lesions were gastrointestinal stromal tumors (51.78 %). No significant difference was found between EUS-FNB and SINK in terms of diagnostic accuracy for a malignant or benign disease (76 % vs. 89.28 %, respectively; P = 0.278). The rate of adverse events (none severe) was also comparable (7.69 % vs. 10 %, respectively; P = 1.0) including two abdominal pain episodes in the EUS-FNB group compared to two delayed bleeding (one requiring hospitalization and radiologic embolization) and 1 abdominal pain in the SINK group. Conclusion EUS-FNB and SINK are equally effective techniques for upper gastrointestinal SETs sampling. SINK can be associated with mild to moderate delayed bleeding.

| S-EPMC7035036 | biostudies-literature

22-gauge core <i>vs</i> 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses.

Project description:AimTo compare the aspiration needle (AN) and core biopsy needle (PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.MethodsConsecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge (G) AN (Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22G PC (EchoTip ProCore; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.ResultsFifty six consecutive patients (29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions (n = 38), lymphadenopathy (n = 13), submucosal tumors (n = 4), or others lesions (n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy (AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy (AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes (AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications (none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36 (64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN (AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.ConclusionBoth needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.

| S-EPMC5075557 | biostudies-literature

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Using 22-gauge and 25-gauge Needles for Pancreatic Masses.

Project description:BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has been used for detecting pancreatic cancer. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of both 22-gauge and 25-gauge EUS-FNA for the detection of pancreatic cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS We searched the electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to June 13, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. RESULTS We analyzed data from 1824 patients from 16 included studies. The estimated pooled data for the 22-gauge needles reported sensitivity was 0.89 (0.83-0.93), specificity was 1.00 (0.74-1.00), positive LR was 485.28 (2.55-92 000) and negative LR was 0.11 (0.07-0.17). Results for the 25-gauge needles showed the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative LR was 0.90 (0.86-0.93), 0.99 (0.89-1.00), 59.53 (7.99-443.66), and 0.10 (0.07-0.14), respectively. The 25-gauge needle had significantly higher pooled sensitivity than the 22-gauge needle (0.90 vs. 0.87, χ²=5.26, P=0.02) while there was no difference in the pooled specificity (0.96 vs. 0.98, χ²=2.12, P=0.15). The quality of most studies was assessed favorable using QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2). CONCLUSIONS Our findings revealed that the 25-gauge EUS-FNA used for pancreatic lesions could have a higher diagnostic yield than using 22-gauge EUS-FNA. Nevertheless, well-designed prospective studies recruiting more patients are needed.

| S-EPMC6257123 | biostudies-literature

Randomized trial comparing the 22-gauge aspiration and 22-gauge biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic mass lesions.

Project description:BackgroundTo overcome limitations of cytology, biopsy needles have been developed to procure histologic samples during EUS.ObjectiveTo compare 22-gauge (G) FNA and 22G biopsy needles (FNB) for EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses.DesignRandomized trial.SettingTertiary-care medical center.PatientsThis study involved 56 patients with solid pancreatic masses.InterventionSampling of pancreatic masses by using 22G FNA or 22G FNB devices.Main outcome measurementsCompare 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.ResultsA 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.LimitationsOnly pancreatic masses were evaluated.ConclusionDiagnostic 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.

| S-EPMC4148209 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data