A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The ability to obtain adequate tissue of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-guided remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics and safety of EUS-FNA for evaluating solid pancreatic lesions using the standard 22-gauge needle versus a novel EUS biopsy needle. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions between 2009 and 2015. Patients underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SharkCore (SC) needle or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. Technical success, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA, the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, and complications were compared. RESULTS: A total of 1088 patients (mean age = 66 years; 49% female) with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SC needle (n = 115) or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle (n = 973). Technical success was 100%. The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar when using the SC and the standard needle (94.1% vs. 92.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis were not significantly different between two needles. Adequate sample collection leading to a definite diagnosis was achieved by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pass in 73%, 92%, and 98% of procedures using the SC needle and 20%, 37%, and 94% procedures using the standard needle (P < 0.001), respectively. The median number of passes to obtain a tissue diagnosis using the SC needle was significantly less as compared to the standard needle (1 and 3, respectively; P< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The EUS SC biopsy needle is safe and technically feasible for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Preliminary results suggest that the SC needle has a diagnostic yield similar to the standard EUS needle and significantly reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain a tissue diagnosis.

Fully covered self-expanding metal stents versus lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent versus plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: clinical outcomes and success.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic transmural drainage/debridement of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) has been performed using double-pigtail plastic (DP), fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMSs), or the novel lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent (LAMS). Our aim was to perform a retrospective cohort study to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events of EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON with DP stents, FCSEMSs, and LAMSs. METHODS: Consecutive patients in 2 centers with WON managed by EUS-guided debridement were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who underwent debridement using DP stents, (2) debridement using FCSEMSs, (3) debridement using LAMSs. Technical success (ability to access and drain a WON by placement of transmural stents), early adverse events, number of procedures performed per patient to achieve WON resolution, and long-term success (complete resolution of the WON without need for further reintervention at 6 months after treatment) were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 313 patients (23.3% female; mean age, 53 years) underwent WON debridement, including 106 who were drained using DP stents, 121 using FCSEMSs, and 86 using LAMSs. The 3 groups were matched for age, cause of the pancreatitis, WON size, and location. The cause of the patients' pancreatitis was gallstones (40.6%), alcohol (30.7%), idiopathic (13.1%), and other causes (15.6%). The mean cyst size was 102 mm (range, 20-510 mm). The mean number of endoscopy sessions was 2.5 (range, 1-13). The technical success rate of stent placement was 99%. Early adverse events were noted in 27 of 313 (8.6%) patients (perforation in 6, bleeding in 8, suprainfection in 9, other in 7). Successful endoscopic therapy was noted in 277 of 313 (89.6%) patients. When comparing the 3 groups, there was no difference in the technical success (P = .37). Early adverse events were significantly lower in the FCSEMS group compared with the DP and LAMS groups (1.6%, 7.5%, and 9.3%; P < .01). At 6-month follow-up, the rate of complete resolution of WON was lower with DP stents compared with FCSEMSs and LAMSs (81% vs 95% vs 90%; P = .001). The mean number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower in the LAMS group compared with the FCSEMS and DP groups (2.2 vs 3 vs 3.6, respectively; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, DP stents remain the sole negative predictor for successful resolution of WON (odds ratio [OR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.53; P = .002) after adjusting for age, sex, and WON size. Although there was no significant difference between FCSEMSs and LAMSs for WON resolution, the LAMS was more likely to have early adverse events (OR, 6.6; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON using FCSEMSs and LAMSs is superior to DP stents in terms of overall treatment efficacy. The number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower with LAMSs compared with FCSEMSs and DP stents.

Esophageal stent fixation with endoscopic suturing device improves clinical outcomes and reduces complications in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer prior to neoadjuvant therapy: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic placement of fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) to treat malignant dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer significantly improves dysphagia; however, these stents have a high migration rate. AIM: To determine whether FCSEMS fixation using an endoscopic suturing device treated malignant dysphagia and prevented stent migration in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy when compared to patients with FCSEMS placement alone. METHOD: A review of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who underwent FCSEMS placement at 3 centers was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 26) was composed of patients who underwent FCSEMS placement with suture placement, and Group B (n = 67) was composed of patients with FCSEMS placement alone. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between Groups A and B in demographics, and tumor characteristics. The technical success rate for stent placement was 100 %. There was no difference between Groups A and B in the median stent diameter and stent lengths. Mean dysphagia score obtained at 1 week after stent placement had improved significantly from baseline (2.4 and 1, respectively, p < 0.001). Patients had a median follow-up of 4 months. Immediate adverse events were mild chest discomfort in 4 patients in Group A and 2 patients in Group B (p = 0.05), and significant acid reflux in 3 patient in Group A compared to 2 patients in Group B (p = 0.1). The stent migration rate was significantly lower in Group A compared to compared to Group B (7.7 vs 26.9 %, respectively, p = 0.004). There was a delayed perforation in 1 patient and 1 death due to aspiration pneumonia in Group B. CONCLUSION: Fixation of esophageal FCSEMSs by using an endoscopic suturing device in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy was shown to be feasible, safe, and relatively effective at preventing stent migration compared to those who had stent placed alone.