British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Type 1 Autoimmune Pancreatitis in Europe: Clinical Profile and Response to Treatment.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is an immune-mediated disease of the pancreas with distinct pathophysiology and manifestations. Our aims were to characterize type 1 AIP in a large pan-European cohort and study the effectiveness of current treatment regimens. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed adults diagnosed since 2005 with type 1 or not-otherwise-specified AIP in 42 European university hospitals. Type 1 AIP was uniformly diagnosed using specific diagnostic criteria. Patients with type 2 AIP and those who had undergone pancreatic surgery were excluded. The primary end point was complete remission, defined as the absence of clinical symptoms and resolution of the index radiologic pancreatic abnormalities attributed to AIP. RESULTS: We included 735 individuals with AIP (69% male; median age, 57 years; 85% White). Steroid treatment was started in 634 patients, of whom 9 (1%) were lost to follow-up. The remaining 625 had a 79% (496/625) complete, 18% (111/625) partial, and 97% (607/625) cumulative remission rate, whereas 3% (18/625) did not achieve remission. No treatment was given in 95 patients, who had a 61% complete (58/95), 19% partial (18/95), and 80% cumulative (76/95) spontaneous remission rate. Higher (≥0.4 mg/kg/day) corticosteroid doses were no more effective than lower (<0.4 mg/kg/day) doses (odds ratio, 0.428; 95% confidence interval, 0.054-3.387) and neither was a starting dose duration >2 weeks (odds ratio, 0.908; 95% confidence interval, 0.818-1.009). Elevated IgG4 levels were independently associated with a decreased chance of complete remission (odds ratio, 0.639; 95% confidence interval, 0.427-0.955). Relapse occurred in 30% of patients. Relapses within 6 months of remission induction were independent of the steroid-tapering duration, induction treatment duration, and total cumulative dose. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with type 1 AIP and elevated IgG4 level may need closer monitoring. For remission induction, a starting dose of 0.4 mg/kg/day for 2 weeks followed by a short taper period seems effective. This study provides no evidence to support more aggressive regimens.

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK. METHODS: Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved. RESULTS: 39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

The development of new onset post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus during hospitalisation is not associated with adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) are at increased risk of developing post pancreatitis diabetes mellitus (PPDM). The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors and sequelae of developing PPDM in a UK tertiary referral centre. METHODS: A prospectively collected single centre database was analysed. Patients were grouped according to whether they had DM or not. Patients with DM were further sub-grouped into pre-existing DM or PPDM. Outcomes measured included incidence of PPDM, mortality, ITU admission, overall length of stay (LOS) and local pancreatitis specific complications. RESULTS: 401 patients with AP between 2018 and 2021 were identified. Sixty-four (16%) of patients had pre-existing DM. Thirty-eight patients (11%) developed PPDM [mild (n = 4, 8.2%), moderate (n = 19, 10.1%), severe (n = 15, 15.2%), p = 0.326]. 71% required insulin therapy for the duration of follow-up or until death. The development of PPDM was strongly associated with the presence (p < 0.001) and extent of necrosis (p < 0.0001). On multi-variate analysis, the development of PPDM was not an independent predictor for increased LOS, ITU admission or overall mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PPDM was 11%. There was a strong correlation with extent of necrosis and the development of PPDM. PPDM did not adversely affect morbidity or mortality.

EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: multicenter collaboration from the United Kingdom and Ireland.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDD) with an electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent (EC-LAMS) has emerged as a viable method of establishing biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Our aim was to assess the efficacy, safety, and outcomes in patients with MDBO who underwent EUS-CDD with an EC-LAMS. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients with MDBO who underwent EUS-CDD with EC-LAMSs at 8 tertiary institutions across the United Kingdom and Ireland between September 2016 and November 2020 was undertaken. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients (55% men) with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range, 17; range, 43-94) were included. The median follow-up period in 117 patients was 70 days (interquartile range, 169; range, 3-869), and 23 patients (19.2%) were alive at the end of the follow-up. Three patients were lost to follow-up. Technical success was achieved in 109 patients (90.8%). Clinical success (reduction of serum bilirubin to ≤50% of original value within 14 days) was achieved in 94.8% of patients (92/97). The adverse event rate was 17.5% (n = 21). Biliary reintervention after initial technical success was required in 9 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CDD with EC-LAMSs at tertiary institutions within a regional hepatopancreatobiliary network for treatment of MDBO was effective in those where ERCP was not possible or was unsuccessful. When technical failures or adverse events occur, most patients can be managed with conservative or endoscopic therapy.

Rate of pancreatic cancer following a negative endoscopic ultrasound and associated factors.

BACKGROUND : Data are limited regarding pancreatic cancer diagnosed following a pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) that does not diagnose pancreatic cancer. We have studied the frequency of, and factors associated with, post-EUS pancreatic cancer (PEPC) and 1-year mortality. METHODS : Between 2010 and 2017, patients with pancreatic cancer and a preceding pancreaticobiliary EUS were identified in a national cohort using Hospital Episode Statistics. Patients with a pancreaticobiliary EUS 6-18 months before a later pancreatic cancer diagnosis were the PEPC cases; controls were those with pancreatic cancer diagnosed within 6 months of pancreaticobiliary EUS. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the factors associated with PEPC and a Cox regression model examined factors associated with 1-year cumulative mortality. RESULTS : 9363 pancreatic cancer patients were studied; 93.5 % identified as controls (men 53.2 %; median age 68 [interquartile range (IQR) 61-75]); 6.5 % as PEPC cases (men 58.2 %; median age 69 [IQR 61-77]). PEPC was associated with older age (≥ 75 years compared with < 65 years, odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95 %CI 1.15-1.76), increasing co-morbidity (Charlson co-morbidity score > 5, OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.49-2.43), chronic pancreatitis (OR 3.13, 95 %CI 2.50-3.92), and diabetes mellitus (OR 1.58, 95 %CI 1.31-1.90). Metal biliary stents (OR 0.57, 95 %CI 0.38-0.86) and EUS-FNA (OR 0.49, 95 %CI 0.41-0.58) were inversely associated with PEPC. PEPC was associated with a higher cumulative mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio 1.12, 95 %CI 1.02-1.24), with only 14 % of PEPC patients (95 %CI 12 %-17 %) having a surgical resection, compared with 21 % (95 %CI 20 %-22 %) of controls. CONCLUSIONS : PEPC occurred in 6.5 % of patients and was associated with chronic pancreatitis, older age, more co-morbidities, and specifically diabetes mellitus. PEPC was associated with a worse prognosis and lower surgical resection rates.

Analgesia in the Initial Management of Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal analgesic strategy for patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy of different analgesic modalities trialled in AP. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science conducted up until June 2021, identified all randomised control trials (RCTs) comparing analgesic modalities in AP. A pooled analysis was undertaken of the improvement in pain scores as reported on visual analogue scale (VAS) on day 0, day 1 and day 2. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were identified including 542 patients. Seven trial drugs were compared: opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs), metamizole, local anaesthetic, epidural, paracetamol, and placebo. Across all modalities, the pooled VAS scores showed global improvement from baseline to day 2. Epidural analgesia appears to provide the greatest improvement in VAS within the first 24 h but is equivalent to opiates by 48 h. Within 24 h, NSAIDs offered similar pain-relief to opiates, while placebo also showed equivalence to other modalities but then plateaued. Local anaesthetics demonstrated least overall efficacy. VAS scores for opiate and non-opiate analgesics were comparable at baseline and day 1. The identified RCTs demonstrated significant statistical and methodological heterogeneity in pain-relief reporting. CONCLUSIONS: There is remarkable paucity of level 1 evidence to guide pain management in AP with small datasets per study. Epidural administration appears effective within the first 24 h of AP although infrequently used and featured in only a single RCT. NSAIDs are an effective opiate sparing alternative during the first 24 h.

A selective anticoagulation policy for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis is associated with favourable outcomes: experience from a UK tertiary referral centre.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of data on the incidence, risk factors, and treatment of splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) in acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: All AP admissions between 2018 and 2021 across North East of England were included. Anticoagulation was considered in the presence of superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) thrombus or progressive splenic vein thrombus (SpVT). The impact of such a selective anticoagulation policy, on vein recanalisation rates and bleeding complications were explored. RESULTS: 401 patients (median age 58) were admitted with AP. 109 patients (27.2%) developed SVT. The splenic vein in isolation was the most common site (n = 46) followed by SMV/PV (n = 36) and combined SMV/PV and SpVT (n = 27). On multivariate logistic regression alcohol aetiology (OR 2.64, 95% CI [1.43-5.01]) and >50% necrosis of the pancreas (OR 14.6, 95% CI [1.43-383.9]) increased the risk of developing SVT. The rate of recanalization with anticoagulation was higher for PVT (66.7%; 42/63) than in SpVT (2/11; p = 0.003). 5/74 of anticoagulated patients developed bleeding complications while 0/35 patients not anticoagulated had bleeding complications (p = 0.4). CONCLUSION: The risk of SVT increases with AP severity and with extent of pancreatic necrosis. A selective anticoagulation policy for PVT and progressive SpVT in AP is associated with favourable outcomes with no increased risk of bleeding complications.

Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for indeterminate biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (d-SOC) with cholangioscopic biopsy sampling has shown promise in the evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Some studies have suggested higher sensitivity for visual impression compared with biopsy sampling, although assessors were not blinded to previous investigations. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement (IOA) of d-SOC in the visual appraisal of biliary strictures when blinded to additional information. METHODS: A multicenter, international cohort study was performed. Cholangioscopic videos in patients with a known final diagnosis were systematically scored. Pseudonymized videos were reviewed by 19 experts in 2 steps: blinded for patient history and investigations and unblinded. RESULTS: Forty-four high-quality videos were reviewed of 19 benign and 25 malignant strictures. The sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of malignancy was 74.2% and 46.9% (blinded) and 72.7% and 62.5% (unblinded). Cholangioscopic certainty of a malignant diagnosis led to overdiagnosis (sensitivity, 90.6%; specificity, 33%), especially if no additional information was provided. The IOA for the presence of malignancy was fair for both assessments (Fleiss' κ = .245 [blinded] and κ = .321 [unblended]). For individual visual features, the IOA ranged from slight to moderate for both assessments (κ = .059-.400 vs κ = .031-.452). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed low sensitivity and specificity for blinded and unblinded d-SOC video appraisal of indeterminate biliary strictures, with considerable interobserver variation. Although reaching a consensus on the optical features of biliary strictures remains important, optimizing visually directed biopsy sampling may be the most important role of cholangioscopy in biliary stricture assessment.

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic transmural drainage is associated with improved outcomes in disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in the neck and body of the pancreas often manifesting as persistent pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) or external pancreatic fistula (EPF). This systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis aimed to review the definitions, clinical presentation, intervention, and outcomes for DPDS. METHODS: The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases were systematically searched until February 2020 using the PRISMA framework. A meta-analysis was performed to assess the success rates of endoscopic and surgical interventions for the treatment of DPDS. Success of DPDS treatment was defined as long-term resolution of symptoms without recurrence of PFC, EPF, or pancreatic ascites. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the quantitative analysis comprising 1355 patients. Acute pancreatitis was the most common etiology (95.3%, 936/982), followed by chronic pancreatitis (3.1%, 30/982). DPDS commonly presented with PFC (83.2%, 948/1140) and EPF (13.4%, 153/1140). There was significant heterogeneity in the definition of DPDS in the literature. Weighted success rate of endoscopic transmural drainage (90.6%, 95%-CI 81.0-95.6%) was significantly higher than transpapillary drainage (58.5%, 95%-CI 36.7-77.4). Pairwise meta-analysis showed comparable success rates between endoscopic and surgical intervention, which were 82% (weighted 95%-CI 68.6-90.5) and 87.4% (95%-CI 81.2-91.8), respectively (P = 0.389). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transmural drainage was superior to transpapillary drainage for the management of DPDS. Endoscopic and surgical interventions had comparable success rates. The significant variability in the definitions and treatment strategies for DPDS warrant standardisation for further research.

Fork-tip needle biopsy versus fine-needle aspiration in endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: a randomized crossover study.

BACKGROUND: A novel fork-tip fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle has recently been introduced for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of fork-tip FNB histology and standard fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: A randomized crossover study was performed in patients referred for EUS-guided sampling. Three passes were taken with each needle in a randomized order. Only samples reported as diagnostic of malignancy were considered positive. The primary end point was the sensitivity of diagnosis of malignancy. Secondary end points included the amount of sample obtained, ease of diagnosis, duration of tissue sampling, pathologist viewing time, and cost. RESULTS: 108 patients were recruited. Median age was 69 years (range 30 - 87) and 57 were male; 85.2 % had a final diagnosis of malignancy. There were statistically significant differences in sensitivity (82 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 72 % to 89 %] vs. 71 % [95 %CI 60 % to 80 %]), accuracy (84 % [95 %CI 76 % to 91 %] vs. 75 % [95 %CI 66 % to 83 %]), proportion graded as a straightforward diagnosis (69 % [95 %CI 60 % to 78 %] vs. 51 % [95 %CI 41 % to 61 %]), and median pathology viewing time (188 vs. 332 seconds) (P < 0.001) between FNB and FNA needles, respectively. There was no significant difference in cost between an FNB or FNA strategy. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of the fork-tip FNB needle was significantly better than that of FNA; it was associated with ease of diagnosis, shorter pathological viewing times, and was cost neutral.

Impact of metal and plastic stents on endoscopic ultrasound-guided aspiration cytology and core histology of head of pancreas masses.

BACKGROUND: Stents are frequently placed in patients with biliary obstruction due to a mass in the head of the pancreas. The impact of plastic or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is unclear. This study aimed to assess, using strict pathological criteria, whether stents impair fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or fine-needle biopsy (FNB). METHODS: All patients with a solid mass in the head of the pancreas who underwent EUS-guided tissue sampling between 2010 and 2016 at our unit were included. Factors with possible impact on diagnostic performance were analyzed using logistic regression. Analysis was performed using both strict (malignant only) and less strict (suspicious for malignancy) cutoffs. RESULTS: Of 631 individuals undergoing 698 procedures, 535 (84.8 %) had a final diagnosis of malignancy, 141 had SEMS, 149 had plastic stents, and 341 had no stent. Using strict criteria, SEMS were associated with an increased occurrence of incorrect diagnosis of EUS tissue sampling, with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.96 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.24 - 3.10). Increasing tumor size (OR 0.72, 95 %CI 0.59 - 0.87), increasing number of passes (OR 0.84, 95 %CI 0.72 - 0.99), and fork-tip biopsy needle (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.31 - 0.86) were independently associated with a decrease in incorrect diagnosis. Repeat tissue sampling was more common with SEMSs (10.2 %) than with plastic stents (2.9 %) or no stents (4.5 %) (P < 0.02). CONCLUSION: SEMS use had a negative impact on tissue diagnosis in pancreatic head masses, whereas use of a fork-tip biopsy needle and increasing number of passes were independently associated with improved accuracy.

Comparison of the diagnostic performance of 2 core biopsy needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A new core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design has recently been introduced for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB). The diagnostic utility of this needle for differentiating solid pancreatic masses is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance and yield for tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions of the opposing bevel needle with those of a reverse bevel EUS-FNB needle. METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-FNB using the opposing bevel (n = 101) and the reverse bevel (n = 100) core biopsy needles were included in the study. Final diagnosis was based on positive histology or at least 12 months of follow-up in cases with a negative biopsy. The primary outcome was the diagnostic performance of the 2 needles for malignant pancreatic masses. A secondary outcome was the diagnostic yield. RESULTS: Compared with the reverse bevel needle, using strict criteria the opposing bevel needle provided significantly higher sensitivity (71.1% vs 90.1%; P = .0006) and overall accuracy (74% vs 92%; I = 0.0006) for discriminating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses. The proportion of samples classified as adequate for histologic analysis was 87% for the reverse bevel needle versus 99% for the opposing bevel needle (p = 0.002) Multivariate analysis controlling the needle gauge and site did not show any significant difference in accuracy and sensitivity between the 2 groups. There were no adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS: In this first, large, single-center preliminary cohort study, an EUS core biopsy needle with a novel tip, opposing bevel, and sheath design afforded substantially superior tissue yield and diagnostic performance compared with a reverse-bevel needle. If replicated by randomized controlled trials, our findings suggest that similarly designed needles could become the standard of care for EUS-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic masses.