Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective multicenter European study.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage allows treatment of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) being the 2 most frequently used modalities. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PFC drainage in 10 European centers were retrospectively retrieved. Technical success (successful deployment), clinical success (satisfactory drainage), rate and type of early adverse events, drainage duration and complications on stent removal were evaluated. Results: A total of 128 patients-92 men (71.9%), age 57.2±11.9 years-underwent drainage, with pancreatic pseudocyst (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) in 92 (71.9%) and 36 (28.1%) patients, respectively. LAMS were used in 80 (62.5%) patients and DPPS in 48 (37.5%). Technical success was achieved in 124 (96.9%) of the cases, with no difference regarding either the type of stent (P>0.99) or PFC type (P=0.07). Clinical success was achieved in 119 (93%); PC had a better response than WON (91/92 vs. 28/36, P<0.001), but the type of stent did not affect the clinical success rate (P=0.29). Twenty patients (15.6%) had at least one early complication, with bleeding being the most common (n=7/20, 35%). No difference was detected in complication rate per type of stent (P=0.61) or per PFC type (P=0.1). Drainage duration was significantly longer with DPPS compared to LAMS: 88 (70-112) vs. 35 (29-55.3) days, P<0.001. Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage of PFCs achieves high percentages of technical and clinical success. Drainage using LAMS is of shorter duration, but the complication rate is similar between the 2 modalities.

Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of the lung masses: a multicenter experience with fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy needles.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intraparenchymal lung masses inaccessible through bronchoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound guidance pose a diagnostic challenge. Furthermore, some fragile or hypoxic patients may be poor candidates for transbronchial approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) offers a potential diagnostic approach to lung cancers adjacent to the esophagus. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of trans-esophageal EUS-FNA/FNB for tissue sampling of pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with pulmonary lesions who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB between March 2015 and August 2021 at eight Italian endoscopic referral centers. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (36 male; mean age 64.47 ± 9.05 years) were included (22 EUS-FNAs and 25 EUS-FNBs). Overall diagnostic accuracy rate was 88.9% (76.3-96.2%). The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were superior for EUS FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.73%); P = 0.05, and (100% vs. 78.57%); P = 0.05, respectively. Additionally, sample adequacy was superior for EUS-FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.5%); P = 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed nodule size at the cutoff of 15 mm (OR 2.29, 1.04-5.5, P = 0.05) and use of FNB needle (OR 4.33, 1.05-6.31, P = 0.05) as significant predictors of higher diagnostic accuracy. There were no procedure-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA/FNB as a minimally invasive procedure for diagnosing and staging peri-esophageal parenchymal lung lesions. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA.

Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. METHODS: Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events. RESULTS: Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.

Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Infection Rate after Endoscopic Ultrasound Through-the-Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Cysts: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (EUS-TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is routinely used in clinical practice. We aim to compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before EUS-TTNB of PCLs and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: Out of 236 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred to two high-volume centers between 2016 and 2021, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: 98 subjects who underwent EUS-TTNB under antibiotic prophylaxis and 49 subjects without prophylaxis. RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of baseline parameters between groups. Final diagnosis was serous cystadenoma in 36.7% of patients in the group not treated with prophylaxis and in 37.7% of patients in the control group, whereas IPMN and mucinous cystadenoma were diagnosed in 3 (6.1%) and 16 (32.6%) versus 6 (6.1%) and 32 (32.6%) patients in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.23). Overall, the adverse event rate was 6.1% in the group not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.1% in the control group (p = 0.49). Only a single infectious adverse event occurred in each group (p = 0.48). The diagnostic yields were 89.7% and 90.8% in the two groups (p = 0.7), and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 81.6% in both groups (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence the risk of infection, and their routine use should be discouraged.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

COVID-19 in the endoscopy unit: How likely is transmission of infection? Results from an international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly affected endoscopy practice, as gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered a risky procedure for transmission of infection to patients and personnel of endoscopy units (PEU). AIM: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy during the first European lockdown (March-May 2020). METHODS: Patients undergoing endoscopy in nine endoscopy units across six European countries during the period of the first European lockdown for COVID-19 (March-May 2020) were included. Prior to the endoscopy procedure, participants were stratified as low- or high- risk for potential COVID-19 infection according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) joint statement, and contacted 7-14 d later to assess COVID-19 infection status. PEU were questioned regarding COVID-19 symptoms and/or infection via questionnaire, while information regarding hospitalizations, intensive care unit-admissions and COVID-19-related deaths were collected. The number of weekly endoscopies at each center during the lockdown period was also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1267 endoscopies were performed in 1222 individuals across nine European endoscopy departments in six countries. Eighty-seven (7%) were excluded because of initial positive testing. Of the 1135 pre-endoscopy low risk or polymerase chain reaction negative for COVID-19, 254 (22.4%) were tested post endoscopy and 8 were eventually found positive, resulting in an infection rate of 0.7% [(95%CI: 0.2-0.12]. The majority (6 of the 8 patients, 75%) had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Of the 163 PEU, 5 [3%; (95%CI: 0.4-5.7)] tested positive during the study period. A decrease of 68.7% (95%CI: 64.8-72.7) in the number of weekly endoscopies was recorded in all centers after March 2020. All centers implemented appropriate personal protective measures (PPM) from the initial phases of the lockdown. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 transmission in endoscopy units is highly unlikely in a lockdown setting, provided endoscopies are restricted to emergency cases and PPM are implemented.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study.

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Two-Center Experience.

There is scarce and conflicting evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and percutaneous (PC)-guided liver biopsy (LB). The aim of this study was to compare the two approaches in a series of patients with parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Fifty-four patients undergoing EUS-LB in two high-volume centers between 2017 and 2021 were compared to 62 patients who underwent PC-LB. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy rate. The secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, total sample length (TSL), number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), procedural duration, and adverse events. Variables were compared using the Chi-square and Mann-Whitney test. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range 48-69) in the EUS-LB group and 54 years (45-67) in the PC-LB group with most patients being male. Indication for LB was due to parenchymal disease in 50% of patients, whereas the other patients underwent LB due to focal liver lesions. Diagnostic adequacy was 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in the EUS-LB group (p = 0.74), whereas diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% in the EUS-LB group and 100% in the PC-LB group (p = 0.82). Median TSL was significantly greater in the PC-LB group (27.4 mm, IQR 21-29) when compared to the EUS-LB group (18.5 mm, 10.1-22.4; p = 0.02). The number of complete portal tracts was 21 (11-24) in the PC-LB group and 18.5 (10-23.2) in EUS-LB group (p = 0.09). EUS-LB was a significantly longer procedure (7 min, 5-11 versus 1 min, 1-3 of PC-LB; p < 0.001) and no evidence of adverse events was observed in any of the study groups. These results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis performed according to an indication for LB (parenchymal disease versus focal lesion). Although PC-LB yielded specimens with greater TSL, diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were similar between the two procedures.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in patients with AIP. Patients and methods Computerized bibliographic search was performed through January 2020. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test. Primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy compared to clinical diagnostic criteria. Additional outcomes were definitive histopathology, pooled rates of adequate material for histological diagnosis, sample adequacy, mean number of needle passes. Diagnostic sensitivity and safety data were also analyzed. Results Fifteen studies with 631 patients were included, of which four were prospective series and one randomized trial. Overall diagnostic accuracy of EUS tissue acquisition was 54.7 % (95 % confidence interval, 40.9 %-68.4 %), with a clear superiority of FNB over FNA (63 %, 52.7 % to 73.4 % versus 45.7 %, 26.5 %-65 %; p < 0.001). FNB provided level 1 of histological diagnosis in 44.2 % of cases (30.8 %-57.5 %) as compared to 21.9 % (10 %-33.7 %) with FNA ( P  < 0.001). The rate of definitive histopathology of EUS tissue sampling was 20.7 % (12.9 %-28.5 %) and it was significantly higher with FNB (24.3 %, 11.8 %-36.8 %) as compared to FNA (14.7 %, 5.4 %-23.9 %; P  < 0.001). Less than 1 % of subjects experienced post-procedural acute pancreatitis. Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided tissue acquisition is modest in patients with AIP, with an improved performance of FNB compared to FNA.

Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Evidence of a superior efficacy of EndoRings over standard colonoscopy in improving colon adenoma detection rate is lacking. We aimed to compare EndoRings and standard colonoscopy through a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through July 2020 and identified five randomized controlled trials (recruiting 2751 patients). The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate; secondary outcomes included advanced and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, mean adenoma per colonoscopy, cecal intubation rate, and time. We performed pairwise meta-analysis through a random-effects model and expressed data as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Overall, pooled adenoma detection rate was 53.9% (49-58.8%) with EndoRings and 49.1% (42-56.1%) with standard colonoscopy (risk ratio 1.05, 0.95-1.17). Advanced adenoma detection (risk ratio 0.91, 0.74-1.12), sessile serrated detection rate (risk ratio 1.10, 0.81-1.50), and polyp detection rate (risk ratio 1.06, 0.98-1.15) were similar between the two groups. Likewise, mean adenoma per colonoscopy (mean difference 0.17, -0.09 to 0.43), cecal intubation rate (risk ratio 1.00, 0.99-1.01), and cecal intubation time (mean difference 0.20 min, -0.34 to 0.74) did not differ between the two add-on devices. No serious adverse event was observed. CONCLUSION: EndoRings did not seem to significantly improve the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy. Further trials are needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis.

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008-2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. RESULTS: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. CONCLUSIONS: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.

Sarcopenia represents a negative prognostic factor in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing EUS celiac plexus neurolysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Increasing evidence suggests a prognostic role of sarcopenia in pancreatic cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of sarcopenia on treatment outcomes after EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding 215 patients treated with EUS CPN between 2004 and 2019 were reviewed. Determination of body composition was conducted on contrast-enhanced CT scan, and pain response was considered as the primary outcome. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify the independent predictors of pain response. RESULTS: Treatment was successful in 187 patients (86.9%). The median age was 62 (range 39-84) years, and most patients were male (61.8%). Of the whole study population, 139 patients (64.6%) were defined as sarcopenic, of which 116 (83.4%) responded to the treatment and 5 (3.5%) experienced a complete response. Among 76 nonsarcopenic participants, 71 (93.4%) responded to the treatment and 22 (28.9%) obtained a complete response (P = 0.03 and <0.001, respectively). The median duration of pain relief was 8 (2-10) and 15 (8-16) weeks in sarcopenic and nonsarcopenic patients, respectively (P = 0.01). The median overall survival after neurolysis was 4 months (3-5) in sarcopenic participants and 7 months (6-8) in nonsarcopenic participants (P = 0.05). Tumoral stage, interval from the diagnosis to treatment, and sarcopenia resulted as significant prognostic factors for treatment response both in univariate and multivariate regression analyses. No severe treatment-related adverse events were reported in the whole study population, with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sarcopenia represents a predictor of poorer response to EUS CPN.

Impact of fellow participation on colon adenoma detection rates: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are limited and conflicting data on the impact of fellow participation in improving the colon adenoma detection rate. We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether fellow involvement might have a beneficial effect on adenoma detection rate. METHODS: The trial was conducted at 4 tertiary hospitals between April and December 2019. Eight hundred twelve patients were randomized to undergo colonoscopy performed by a fellow under the supervision of a staff endoscopist or by an attending physician alone. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographic or adenoma risk factors were detected between the 2 groups. The adenoma detection rate in the intervention group was 44.8% versus 37.1% in the control arm (P = .02). The mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was significantly higher in the intervention group (0.65 ± 0.3 vs 0.53 ± 0.2 in the control arm, P < .001). The polyp detection rate was 69.7% in the intervention group and 62.5% in the control arm (P = .03), whereas rates of advanced and sessile/serrated adenoma detection were not different between the trial arms (P = .50 and .42, respectively). In the subgroup of more experienced fellows, the adenoma detection rate and polyp detection rate were 49.5% and 75.7%, respectively. No difference was observed between less-experienced fellows and attending physicians alone (P = .53 and 0.86, respectively). The level of bowel preparation and fellow involvement were significant predictors of increased adenoma detection rate in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Our multicenter trial represents the first prospective validation of the beneficial role of fellow involvement in colonoscopy procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03908229.).

Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Robust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: A total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96-1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89-1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%-98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%-94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: -0.32, -0.66-0.02; P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.

Comparison between fine-needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration for EUS-guided sampling of subepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited evidence on the diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling in patients with subepithelial lesions. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare EUS-guided FNB sampling performance with FNA in patients with GI subepithelial lesions. METHODS: A computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through May 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, histologic core procurement rate, and mean number of needle passes. Summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ten studies (including 6 randomized trials) with 669 patients were included. Pooled rates of adequate samples for FNB sampling were 94.9% (range, 92.3%-97.5%) and for FNA 80.6% (range, 71.4%-89.7%; OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.29-5.01; P = .007). When rapid on-site evaluation was available, no significant difference between the 2 techniques was observed. Optimal histologic core procurement rate was 89.7% (range, 84.5%-94.9%) with FNB sampling and 65% (range, 55.5%-74.6%) with FNA (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.03-5.27; P < .0001). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly superior in patients undergoing FNB sampling (OR, 4.10; 95% CI, 2.48-6.79; P < .0001) with the need of a lower number of passes (mean difference, -.75; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.30; P = .001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings in all subgroups tested. Very few adverse events were observed and did not impact on patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results speak clearly in favor of FNB sampling, which was found to outperform FNA in all diagnostic outcomes evaluated.

Cirrhosis Is a Predictor of Adverse Events in Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Propensity-Score Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cirrhotic patients are at increased risk of adverse events (AEs) after invasive procedures. However, the safety profile of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration in cirrhotic patients is still unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine the AEs rate after EUS fine-needle aspiration in cirrhotic patients as compared to a control group of noncirrhotic patients. METHODS: Out of 735 patients with suspected abdominal lesions referred to our center between 2006 and 2018, after propensity-score matching, 2 groups were compared: 95 cirrhotics and 95 controls. Primary variables included rate of overall and serious AEs. Secondary endpoint was incidence of acute-on-chronic liver failure. RESULTS: Median age was 64 years, and pancreatic lesions represented the sampled tissue in 57 patients (60%) in each group (p = 1.0) with mean size of 22 mm in both cohorts (p = 0.3). Overall, 20 AEs (21%) of which 9 serious (9.4%) were observed in cirrhotic patients and 3 (3.1%) mild events were experienced by noncirrhotic subjects. Only liver cirrhosis was confirmed as a significant predictor of AEs in multivariate analysis (OR 8.11, 2.34-28; p = 0.001). Overall rate of infections was 6/95 (6.3%), of which 4 were serious (4.2%) in cirrhotics and 1/95 (1%) in the control group (p = 0.05). All serious infections led to the occurrence of acute-on-chronic liver failure. Minor bleeding events were more frequent in cirrhotic patients (4.2 vs. 0%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of AEs after EUS fine-needle aspiration is higher in cirrhotic patients, and acute-on-chronic liver failure may represent a serious complication of this procedure.

Statins decrease the risk of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts.

BACKGROUND: Basic and clinical studies suggest that statins may prevent and even ameliorate acute pancreatitis. The present study was to evaluate whether statin decreases the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts. METHODS: Out of 456 patients with pancreatic cysts referred to our center between 2006 and 2018, 365 were finally included in analyses: 86 were treated with statins and 279 were not at the time of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration. We compared the acute pancreatitis incidence between the two groups, and we also compared other complications such as bleeding and infections. RESULTS: Median age was 64 years [interquartile range (IQR) 62-69] and median cyst size was 24 mm (IQR, 21-29). The most frequent histology was intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (45.3% and 42.3% in the two groups, respectively; P = 0.98). All 13 patients experiencing post-endoscopic ultrasound acute pancreatitis were from the control group (4.7%), of which 3 were classified as severe pancreatitis. None of statin users developed post-procedural acute pancreatitis (odds ratio: 0.15; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.98; P = 0.03). No difference was registered with regard to severe pancreatitis and other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Statins exert a beneficial role in preventing acute pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic cysts undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. If confirmed in prospective trials, our findings may pave the way to an extensive use of statins as prophylactic agents in pancreatic interventional endoscopy.

Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Although newer needle designs are thought to improve diagnostic outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy, there is limited evidence on their diagnostic performance. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance and safety profile of Franseen and Fork-tip fine-needle biopsy needles. Patients and methods Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through March 2019. The primary endpoint was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, optimal histological core procurement, mean number of needle passes, pooled specificity and sensitivity. Safety data were also analyzed. Results Twenty-four studies with 6641 patients were included and pancreas was the prevalent location of sampled lesions. Overall sample adequacy with the two newer needles was 94.8 % (93.1 % - 96.4 %), with superiority of Franseen needle over Fork-tip (96.1 % versus 92.4 %, P  < 0.001). Sample adequacy in targeting pancreatic masses was 95.6% and both needles produced results superior to fine-needle aspiration (FNA) (odds ratio 4.29, 1.49 - 12.35 and 1.79, 1.01 - 3.19 with Franseen and Fork-tip needle, respectively). The rate of histological core procurement was 92.5%, whereas diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were 95 % and 92.8 %, again with no difference between the two needles. Number of needle passes was significantly lower in comparison to FNA (mean difference: -0.42 with Franseen and -1.60 with Fork-tip needle). No significant adverse events were registered. Conclusion Our meta-analysis speaks in favor of use of newer biopsy needles as a safe and effective tool in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition.