Methods of tissue preparation after EUS-guided tissue acquisition without rapid on-site assessment: Results of a randomized study.

In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), it is not clear which method of tissue preparation is best to process tissue obtained from EUS guidance. Cytological smearing (CS), cell block (CB), and direct histology (DH) are the available techniques. AIM: To compare the diagnostic yield of three techniques of tissue preparation for EUS-guided tissue acquisition without ROSE. METHODS: Patients who were referred for EUS-FNA of peri-gastrointestinal masses were recruited. Without ROSE, each lesion was biopsied with three needle passes, and the order in which tissue is prepared was randomized to either (i) CS + CB, (ii) CB only, or (iii) DH only. The prepared specimens were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 243 specimens were taken from 81 patients. Tissue diagnosis was achieved in 78/81 (96.3%) of patients, including 63 neoplasms (PDAC [n = 45], pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors [PNET; n = 4], cholangiocarcinoma [n = 5], metastatic disease [n = 4], lymphoma [n = 1], linitis plastica [n = 2], leiomyoma [n = 2]) and 15 benign pathologies (chronic pancreatitis [n = 8], reactive nodes [n = 5], inflammatory biliary stricture [n = 1], and pancreatic rest [n = 1]). The three non-diagnostic cases were found to be PDAC (n = 2) and PNET (n = 1). Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy was highest with DH (94 and 95%), which was significantly better than that by CS + CB (43 and 54%; P = 0.0001) and CB-only preparations (32 and 48.6%; P < 0.0001). There was no significant difference between the CS + CB and CB-only arms (P > 0.22). CONCLUSION: Without ROSE, our findings suggest that with just a single pass, DH should be the tissue preparation method of choice given its significantly higher diagnostic accuracy compared with CS and/or CB techniques.

Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90). DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Performance of a new preloaded fiducial needle to guide radiation therapy of upper gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of fiducials to outline the targeted lesion allows image-guided radiotherapy, and is best achieved by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This study is a performance comparison of the new EUS-guided preloaded fiducial needle against Visicoil fiducials. METHODS: Technical success, visibility score, procedural time, costs, and complications for patients who underwent EUS-guided fiducial placement in upper gastrointestinal malignancies were prospectively collected. RESULTS: 60 patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers had fiducials (14 Visicoil; 46 preloaded fiducials) inserted for image-guided radiotherapy. Technical success was 100 %, with a shorter mean (standard deviation) insertion time of 0.94 minutes (0.28 minutes) vs. 5.5 minutes (1.9 minutes; P < 0.001) and higher visibility score on fluoroscopy of 2 vs. 1.18 (P < 0.001) in the preloaded group. Neither group had major complications related to fiducial insertion. The cost of consumables per patient was lower in the preloaded group at US$480 (US$124) vs. US$643 (US$123; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Fiducial insertion for image-guided radiotherapy using the new preloaded needle is associated with 100 % technical success, shorter insertion time, and higher visibility, and is more cost-effective than the Visicoil system.

Implementing electronic health care predictive analytics: considerations and challenges.

The use of predictive modeling for real-time clinical decision making is increasingly recognized as a way to achieve the Triple Aim of improving outcomes, enhancing patients' experiences, and reducing health care costs. The development and validation of predictive models for clinical practice is only the initial step in the journey toward mainstream implementation of real-time point-of-care predictions. Integrating electronic health care predictive analytics (e-HPA) into the clinical work flow, testing e-HPA in a patient population, and subsequently disseminating e-HPA across US health care systems on a broad scale require thoughtful planning. Input is needed from policy makers, health care executives, researchers, and practitioners as the field evolves. This article describes some of the considerations and challenges of implementing e-HPA, including the need to ensure patients' privacy, establish a health system monitoring team to oversee implementation, incorporate predictive analytics into medical education, and make sure that electronic systems do not replace or crowd out decision making by physicians and patients.