EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Directed Transgastric ERCP in Patients With Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a therapeutic procedure for skilled endoscopists that can be even more challenging in some situations, including patients' post-Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) surgery. There is still no consensus on whether laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) is the most appropriate, safe, and feasible approach in patients with this type of post-surgical anatomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine both approaches' feasibility, efficacy, and safety in this situation. We searched for electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Central Cochrane) to identify studies comparing LA-ERCP versus EDGE. Outcomes measured included technical success, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, length of stay (LOS), and procedural time. Descriptive data related to the EDGE procedure was also extracted. The risk of bias and the quality of evidence of the enrolled studies were assessed. Five studies, totalizing 268 patients (176 LA-ERCP and 92 EDGE), were included. There was no statistical difference in technical success and AEs between groups; however, the LOS and procedural times were shorter for the EDGE group. High rates of fistula closure and no weight regain were observed in EDGE. Both methods are feasible and safe techniques to perform ERCP in patients with RYGB anatomy, with comparable technical success and adverse events rate. However, EDGE is associated with shorter LOS and procedural time.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy for the Palliation of Gastric Outlet Obstruction (GOO): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Different Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is usually associated with a poor prognosis and a significant decrease in a patient's quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has emerged as a safe and effective palliation procedure for GOO in patients that are unfit for surgery. Without an exclusive gold-standard technique for EUS-GE, we aimed to compare the currently available ones in this systematic review and meta-analysis, the first on this subspecialty. METHODS: A comprehensive search from multiple electronic databases was performed. The search had a particular emphasis on the techniques used in performing EUS-GE. We identified all the studies in which EUS-GE was performed as palliation for GOO from its inception to the current date. The outcomes analyzed were the following: technical and clinical success, total and severe adverse events (AEs), procedure duration, and length of hospital stay (LOHS). RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 863 patients were the basis of this statistical analysis. Patients underwent the following techniques: direct gastroenterostomy (DGE) (n=718), balloon-assisted gastroenterostomy (BAGE) (n=27), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass (n=118). In comparison to balloon-assisted techniques, DGE had a lower rate of AEs, -0.121 (95% CI -0.191 to -0.051 p=0.001); and LOHS for the DGE group, -2.684 (95% CI -1.031 to -4.337 p=0.001). The other analyzed outcomes presented no statistically significant differences. On a sub-analysis, BAGE showed a lower rate of AEs than EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, -0.196 (95% CI -0.061 to -0.331 p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE is a safe and effective procedure for palliating GOO. When correctly administered, any of the analyzed techniques may be used to palliate GOO with similar technical and clinical outcomes. DGE had significantly lower rates of AEs and LOHS, which can be inferred as a safer procedure. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited few studies that are available and accessible. Therefore, further well-designed, randomized clinical studies on the topic are warranted to compare the different techniques from more sources.

Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) is traditionally considered a first-line strategy for diagnosing pancreatic lesions; however, given less than ideal accuracy rates, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has been recently developed to yield histological tissue. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic yield and safety between EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB in sampling of pancreatic masses. Patients and methods This was a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for pancreatic lesions. Baseline characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, were evaluated. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) diagnostic adequacy, cell-block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses comparing FNA versus FNB route of tissue acquisition and comparison between methods with or without ROSE were performed. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed. Results A total of 574 patients (n = 194 FNA, n = 380 FNB) were included. Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FNB versus FNA were similar [(89.09 % versus 85.62 %; P  = 0.229), (98.04 % versus 96.88 %; P  = 0.387), and 90.29 % versus 87.50 %; P  = 0.307)]. Number of passes for ROSE adequacy and cell-block accuracy were comparable for FNA versus FNB [(3.06 ±â€Š1.62 versus 3.04 ±â€Š1.88; P  = 0.11) and (3.08 ±â€Š1.63 versus 3.35 ±â€Š2.02; P  = 0.137)]. FNA + ROSE was superior to FNA alone regarding sensitivity and accuracy [91.96 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (91.80 % versus 80.28 %; P  = 0.020)]. Sensitivity of FNB + ROSE and FNB alone were superior to FNA alone [(92.17 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001) and (87.44 % versus 70.83 %; P  < 0.001)]. There was no difference in sensitivity though improved accuracy between FNA + ROSE versus FNB alone [(91.96 % versus 87.44 %; P  = 0.193) and (91.80 % versus 80.72 %; P  = 0.006)]. FNB + ROSE was more accurate than FNA + ROSE (93.13 % versus 91.80 % ; P  = 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed ROSE was a significant predictor of accuracy [OR 2.60 (95 % CI, 1.41-4.79)]. One adverse event occurred after FNB resulting in patient death. Conclusion EUS-FNB allowed for more consistent cell-block evaluation as compared to EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA + ROSE was found to have a similar sensitivity to EUS-FNB alone suggesting a reduced need for ROSE as part of the standard algorithm of pancreatic sampling. While FNB alone produced similar diagnostic findings to EUS-FNA + ROSE, FNB + ROSE still was noted to increase diagnostic yield. This finding may favor a unique role for FNB + ROSE, suggesting it may be useful in cases when previous EUS-guided sampling may have been indeterminate.

Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of bougies and balloons to dilate benign esophageal strictures (BES) is a consolidated procedure. However, the amount of evidence available in scientific literature supporting which is the best technique is very low, despite the great prevalence and importance of such pathology. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims at comparing both techniques, providing good quality of evidence. METHODS: We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from insertion to November 2017, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and grey literature. After the data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed. The main outcomes were symptomatic relief and recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were bleeding, perforation, and postprocedure pain. RESULTS: We included 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), totalizing 461 patients. Among them, 151 were treated with bougie dilation and 225 underwent balloon dilation. Regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates, there were no differences between the methods. Concerning postprocedure pain, patients submitted to balloon dilation had less intense pain (RD 0.27, 95% IC -0.42 to -0.07, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no difference between bougie and balloon dilation of BESs regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence rate at 12 months, bleeding, and perforation. Patients undergoing balloon dilation present less severe postprocedure pain.