Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).

Treatment of refractory post-esophagectomy anastomotic esophageal strictures using temporary fully covered esophageal metal stenting compared to repeated bougie dilation: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) provide an alternative to bougie dilation (BD) for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Controlled studies comparing temporary placement of FCSES to repeated BD are not available. Patients and methods Patients with refractory anastomotic esophageal strictures, dysphagia scores ≥ 2, and two to five prior BD were randomized to 8 weeks of FCSEMS or to repeated BD. The primary endpoint was the number of BD during the 12 months after baseline treatment. Results Eighteen patients were included (male 67 %, median age 66.5; 9 received metal stents, 9 received BD). Technical success rate of stent placement and stent removal was 100 %. Recurrent dysphagia occurred in 13 patients (72 %) during follow-up. No significant difference was found between the stent and BD groups for mean number of BD during follow-up (5.4 vs. 2.4, P  = 0.159), time to recurrent dysphagia (median 36 days vs. 33 days, Kaplan-Meier: P  = 0.576) and frequency of reinterventions per month (median 0.3 vs. 0.2, P  = 0.283). Improvement in quality of life score was greater in the stent group compared to the BD group at month 12 (median 26 % vs. 4 %, P  = 0.011). Conclusions The current data did not provide evidence for a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the number of BD during the 12 months after initial treatment. Metal stenting offers greater improvement in quality of life from baseline at 12 months compared to repeated BD for patients with refractory anastomotic esophageal strictures.

Electrical stimulation therapy of the lower oesophageal sphincter for refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease - interim results of an international multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous single-centre study showed that lower oesophageal sphincter electrical stimulation therapy (LES-EST) in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients improves reflux symptoms and decreases oesophageal acid exposure. AIM: To evaluate safety and efficacy of LES-EST in GERD patients with incomplete response to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in a prospective, international, multicentre, open-label study. METHODS: GERD patients, partially responsive to PPIs, received LES-EST. GERD health-related quality of life (GERD-HRQL), daily symptom diaries, quality of life scores, oesophageal acid exposure, and LES resting and residual pressure were measured before and after initiation of LES-EST. Stimulation sessions were optimised based on residual symptoms and oesophageal acid exposure. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled and 6-month data from 41 patients are available. Hiatal repair was performed in 16 patients. One device-related, one procedure-related and one unrelated severe adverse event were reported. GERD-HRQL improved from 31.0 (IQR 26.2-36.8) off-PPI and 16.5 (IQR 9.0-22.8) on-PPI to 4 (IQR 1-8) at 3-month and 5 (IQR 3-9) at 6-month follow-up (P < 0.0001 vs. on- and off-PPI). Oesophageal acid exposure (pH < 4.0) improved from 10.0% (IQR 7.5-12.9) to 3.8% (IQR 1.9-12.3) at 3 months (P = 0.0027) and 4.4% (IQR 2.2-7.2) at 6 months (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These interim results show an acceptable safety record of LES-EST to date, combined with good short-term efficacy in GERD patients who are partially responsive to PPI therapy. A remarkable reduction in regurgitation symptoms, without the risk of intervention-requiring dysphagia may prove to be an advantage compared with other anti-reflux procedures. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01574339.