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.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver abscess drainage: A multicenter collaborative study.

Background and Objectives: Management of hepatic abscesses has traditionally been performed by image-guided percutaneous techniques. More recently, EUS drainage has been shown to be efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-guided versus percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of hepatic abscesses. Methods: Patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage or PCD of hepatic abscesses from January 2018 through November 2021 from 4 international academic centers were included in a dedicated registry. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, abscess characteristics, procedural data, adverse events, and postprocedure care were collected. Results: Seventy-four patients were included (mean age, 63.9 years; 45% male): EUS-guided (n = 30), PCD (n = 44). Preprocedure Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were 4.3 for the EUS group and 4.3 for the PCD group. The median abscess size was 8.45 × 6 cm (length × width) in the EUS group versus 7.3 × 5.5 cm in the PCD group. All of the abscesses in the EUS group were left-sided, whereas the PCD group contained both left- and right-sided abscesses (29 and 15, respectively). Technical success was 100% in both groups. Ten-millimeter-diameter stents were used in most cases in the EUS group, and 10F catheters were used in the PCD group. The duration to resolution of symptoms from the initial procedure was 10.9 days less in the EUS group compared with the PCD group (P < 0.00001). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the EUS group by 5.2 days (P = 0.000126). The EUS group had significantly fewer number of repeat sessions: mean of 2 versus 7.7 (P < 0.00001) and trended toward fewer number of procedure-related readmissions: 10% versus 34%. The PCD group had a significantly higher number of adverse events (n = 27 [61%]) when compared with the EUS group (n = 5 [17%]; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage is an efficacious and safe intervention for the management of hepatic abscesses. EUS-guided drainage allows for quicker resolution of symptoms, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer adverse events, and fewer procedural sessions needed when compared with the PCD technique. However, EUS-guided drainage may not be feasible in right-sided lesions.

SPHINCTEROTOMY ALONE VERSUS SPHINCTEROTOMY AND BILIARY STENT PLACEMENT IN THE TREATMENT OF BILE LEAKS: 10 YEAR EXPERIENCE AT A QUATERNARY HOSPITAL.

BACKGROUND: Hepatobiliary surgery and hepatic trauma are frequent causes of bile leaks and this feared complication can be safely managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The approach consists of sphincterotomy alone, biliary stenting or a combination of the two but the optimal form remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare sphincterotomy alone versus sphincterotomy plus biliary stent placement in the treatment of post-surgical and traumatic bile leaks. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients with the final ERCP diagnosis of "bile leak". Data collected included patient demographics, etiology of the leak and the procedure details. The treatment techniques were divided into two groups: sphincterotomy alone vs. sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting. We evaluated the volume of the abdominal surgical drain before and after each procedure and the number of days needed until cessation of drainage post ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients (18 men and 3 women; mean age, 51 years) with bile leaks were evaluated. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the etiology of the leak in 14 (45%) cases, followed by conventional cholecystectomy in 9 (29%) patients, hepatic trauma in 5 (16%) patients, and hepatectomy secondary to neoplasia in 3 (9.7%) patients. The most frequent location of the leaks was the cystic duct stump with 12 (38.6%) cases, followed by hepatic common duct in 10 (32%) cases, common bile duct in 7 (22%) cases and the liver bed in 2 (6.5%) cases. 71% of the patients were treated with sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting, and 29% with sphincterotomy alone. There was significant difference between the volume drained before and after both procedures (P<0.05). However, when comparing sphincterotomy alone and sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting, regarding the volume drained and the days needed to cessation of drainage, there was no statistical difference in both cases (P>0.005). CONCLUSION: ERCP remains the first line treatment for bile leaks with no difference between sphincterotomy alone vs sphincterotomy plus stent placement.

Esfincterotomia isolada versus esfincterotomia associada a passagem de prótese biliar no tratamento de fístulas biliares: 10 anos de experiência de um hospital quaternário / Sphincterotomy alone versus sphincterotomy and biliary stent placement in the treatment of bile leaks: 10 year experience at a quaternary hospital

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Hepatobiliary surgery and hepatic trauma are frequent causes of bile leaks and this feared complication can be safely managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The approach consists of sphincterotomy alone, biliary stenting or a combination of the two but the optimal form remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare sphincterotomy alone versus sphincterotomy plus biliary stent placement in the treatment of post-surgical and traumatic bile leaks. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 31 patients with the final ERCP diagnosis of "bile leak". Data collected included patient demographics, etiology of the leak and the procedure details. The treatment techniques were divided into two groups: sphincterotomy alone vs. sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting. We evaluated the volume of the abdominal surgical drain before and after each procedure and the number of days needed until cessation of drainage post ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients (18 men and 3 women; mean age, 51 years) with bile leaks were evaluated. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was the etiology of the leak in 14 (45%) cases, followed by conventional cholecystectomy in 9 (29%) patients, hepatic trauma in 5 (16%) patients, and hepatectomy secondary to neoplasia in 3 (9.7%) patients. The most frequent location of the leaks was the cystic duct stump with 12 (38.6%) cases, followed by hepatic common duct in 10 (32%) cases, common bile duct in 7 (22%) cases and the liver bed in 2 (6.5%) cases. 71% of the patients were treated with sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting, and 29% with sphincterotomy alone. There was significant difference between the volume drained before and after both procedures (P<0.05). However, when comparing sphincterotomy alone and sphincterotomy plus biliary stenting, regarding the volume drained and the days needed to cessation of drainage, there was no statistical difference in both cases (P>0.005). CONCLUSION: ERCP remains the first line treatment for bile leaks with no difference between sphincterotomy alone vs sphincterotomy plus stent placement.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Cirurgia hepatobiliar e trauma hepático são causas frequentes de fístulas biliares, e esta temida complicação pode ser manejada de forma segura através da colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE). O procedimento consiste em esfincterotomia isolada, passagem de prótese biliar ou combinação das duas técnicas, porém a forma ideal permanece incerta. OBJETIVO: O objetivo desse estudo é comparar a realização de esfincterotomia isolada versus locação de prótese biliar no tratamento de fístulas pós-cirúrgicas e traumáticas. MÉTODOS: Foram analisados de forma retrospectiva 31 CPREs com diagnóstico final de "fístula biliar". A informação colhida incluía dados demográficos dos pacientes, etiologia das fístulas e detalhes dos procedimentos. As técnicas de tratamentos foram divididas em dois grupos: esfincterotomia isolada vs esfincterotomia associada a locação de prótese biliar. Foram analisados os volumes dos drenos abdominais cirúrgicos antes e depois de cada procedimento e o número de dias necessários para que ocorresse cessação da drenagem pelo dreno abdominal cirúrgico após a CPRE. RESULTADOS: Um total de 31 pacientes (18 homens e 3 mulheres; idade média de 51 anos) com fístulas biliares foram avaliados. Colecistectomia laparoscópica foi a etiologia da fístula em 14 (45%) casos, seguida de colecistectomia convenvional em 9 (29%) pacientes, trauma hepático em 5 (16%) pacientes, e hepatectomia secundária a neoplasia em 3 (9,7%) pacientes. As localizações mais frequentes das fístulas foram: coto do ducto císticos com 12 (38,6%) casos, seguido de ducto hepático comum em 10 (32%) casos, ducto colédoco em 7 (22%) cases e leito hepático em 2 (6,5%) casos. 71% dos pacientes foram tratados com esfincterotomia associada a passagem de prótese biliar e 29% com esfincterotomia isolada. Houve diferença estatística em relação ao volume drenado antes e depois de ambos os procedimentos (P<0,05). Entretanto, quando comparada esfincterotomia isolada e esfincterotomia associada a passagem de prótese biliar, em relação ao volume drenado e ao número de dias necessários para cessação da drenagem, não houve diferença estatística em ambos os casos (P>0,005). CONCLUSÃO: A CPRE permanece como tratamento de primeira linha no tratamento de fístulas biliares, sem diferença entra a esfincterotomia isolada versus esfincterotomia associada a passagem de prótese biliar.