A 22-G or a 25-G Needle: Which One to Use in the Diagnostics of Solid Pancreatic Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

With the 12th highest incidence and a common late diagnostic at advanced stages, neoadjuvant therapies for pancreatic cancer are important, but they require a confirmed diagnosis. Being a diagnostic standard, the clarification of the clinical relevance of needle gauges is needed, as larger ones may retrieve more tissue for diagnostics, but may also increase the risk of complications. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficiency of the most commonly used 22-G and 25-G needles for EUS guided biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions. The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were searched with "EUS", "needle", "FNA", "pancreas", "prospective", "22G", and "25G" keywords. Mixed effects were assessed in the model, with a mean of 86% and a 95% confidence interval. Fourteen prospective studies that compared the efficiency of 22-G and 25-G biopsy needles in 508 and 524 lesions, respectively, were analyzed, along with 332 specimens biopsied using both needle sizes. The groups did not significantly differ in the outcomes. A low degree of heterogeneity was observed overall, except for specimen adequacy. Moreover, 22-G and 25-G needles have comparable safety and efficacy for focal pancreatic lesion biopsies without a high risk of complications.

Oral anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of bleeding: Clinical characteristics and treatment strategies based on data from the Polish multicenter register of atrial fibrillation (POL-AF).

BACKGROUND: Despite its benefits, oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with hemorrhagic complications. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics of AF patients at high risk of bleeding and the frequency of OAC use as well as identify factors that predict nonuse of OACs in these patients. METHODS: Consecutive AF patients hospitalized for urgent or planned reasons in cardiac centers were prospectively included in the registry in 2019. Patients with HAS-BLED ≥3 (high HAS-BLED group) were assumed to have a high risk of bleeding. RESULTS: Among 3598 patients enrolled in the study, 29.2% were at high risk of bleeding (44.7% female; median [Q1-Q3] age 72 [65-81], CHA2DS2-VASc score 5 [4-6], HAS-BLED 3 [3-4]). In this group, 14.5% of patients did not receive OACs, 68% received NOACs, and 17.5% VKAs. In multivariable analysis, the independent predictors of nonuse of oral OACs were as follows: creatinine level (odds ratio [OR], 1.441; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.174-1.768; P <0.001), a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR, 2.918; 95% CI, 1.395-6.103; P = 0.004), malignant neoplasm (OR, 3.127; 95% CI, 1.332-7.343; P = 0.009), and a history of strokes or transient ischemic attacks (OR, 0.327; 95% CI, 0.166-0.642; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OACs were used much less frequently in the group with a high HAS-BLED score than in the group with a low score. Independent predictors of nonuse of OACs were creatinine levels, a history of gastrointestinal bleeding, and malignant neoplasms. A history of stroke or transient ischemic attack increased the chances of receiving therapy.

Anticoagulant Treatment in Patients with AF and Very High Thromboembolic Risk in the Era before and after the Introduction of NOAC: Observation at a Polish Reference Centre.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Therefore, patients with AF require appropriate management and anticoagulant therapy. To balance therapy risks and benefits, oral anticoagulants (OAC) treatment should be 'tailored' in patients at a high risk of stroke and bleeding. However, some studies have demonstrated that certain groups of patients do not receive anticoagulants despite the high risk of stroke or thromboembolism. The study aimed to analyse therapeutic methods of stroke prevention in very high-risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥5 in men and ≥6 in women), identify factors predisposing against the use of OACs and assess the administration of anticoagulants before the introduction of non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC) in 2004-2011 and beyond (years 2012-2019). The analysis covered 2441 patients with AF at a very high thromboembolic risk who were hospitalised in a reference cardiological centre from 2004 to 2019. Data concerning patients' sex, age, comorbidities, type of AF, renal and echocardiographic parameters, reasons for hospitalisation and applied treatment were collected from medical records. HAS-BLED, CHADS2, and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were calculated for all patients. The treatment with oral anticoagulants was compared in the entire population over 2004-2011 and 2012-2019. In this study, a fifth of patients were not treated with OAC. Most patients hospitalised in the years 2012-2019 were treated with OAC. The predictors of not using OAC turned out to be: age of >74 years, heart failure, cancer, paroxysmal AF, and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or elective coronary angiography/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as a reason for hospitalisation. The introduction of NOAC was associated with a decline in the use of VKA (from 62% to 19.1%) and APT (from 29.1% to 1.3%). This study outlines reasons to initiate OAC treatment in very high-risk patients in clinical practice.