RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#This study aimed to compare the safety of the double-guidewire technique (DGT) with that of the conventional single-guidewire technique (SGT) in real-world situations. @*Methods@#A total of 240 patients with naïve papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2021 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the SGT and DGT groups. @*Results@#A total of 163 patients (67.9%) belonged to the SGT group, and 77 (32.1%) belonged to the DGT group. The rates of successful biliary cannulation were 95.7% and 83.1% in the SGT and DGT groups, respectively (p=0.002). In the study group, PEP occurred in 14 patients (5.8%). The PEP rates were not significantly different between the SGT and DGT groups (4.3% vs. 9.1%, p=0.150). In the multivariate analysis, the age of <50 years (odds ratio [OR], 9.305; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.367–63.358; p=0.023) and hyperlipidemia (OR, 7.384; 95% CI, 1.103–49.424; p=0.039) were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group. @*Conclusions@#DGT did not increase the PEP rate in patients with naïve papilla. In addition, the age of <50 years and hyperlipidemia were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#This study evaluated the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at the authors’ institution and analyzed the risk factors associated with VTE and the overall survival (OS). @*Methods@#One hundred and seventy patients with locally advanced or metastatic PDAC who received palliative chemotherapy at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center from January 2011 to December 2020 were included. @*Results@#During a median follow-up period of 341 days, 24 patients (14.1%) developed VTE. Cumulative incidence values of VTE were 4.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.39-9.22) at 90 days, 9.9% (95% CI, 6.14-15.59) at 180 days, and 16.9% (95% CI, 11.50-24.36) at 360 days. Multivariate analysis showed that a carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) level over 1,000 U/mL (hazard ratio [HR], 2.666; 95% CI, 1.112-6.389; p=0.028) and a history of alcohol consumption (HR, 0.327; 95% CI, 0.109-0.981; p=0.046) were significant factors associated with VTE. Patients with VTE showed a shorter median survival (347 days vs. 556 days; p=0.041) than those without VTE. Multivariate analysis revealed VTE (HR, 1.850; 95% CI, 1.049-3.263; p=0.033) and CA 19-9 level over 1,000 U/mL (HR, 1.843;95% CI, 1.113-3.052; p=0.017) to be significant risk factors associated with OS. @*Conclusions@#The cumulative incidence of VTE in patients with advanced PDAC was 16.9% at 360 days. While a history of alcohol consumption was a protective factor, a high CA19-9 level was a risk factor for VTE. In addition, the occurrence of VTE was associated with poor prognosis.
RESUMEN
Lactococcus garvieae is a Gram-positive cocci that has been known to be a fish pathogen, and considered as a low virulence organism rarely associated with human infection. We report a case of acute cholangitis with common bile duct (CBD) stone and bacteremia by L. garvieae bacteremia in a 70-year-old male. The patient presented with epigastric pain and was diagnosed with two CBD stones. Blood culture obtained prior to empiric antimicrobial therapy with ceftizoxime sodium showed growth with Escherichia coli and L. garvieae. The bacteria were confirmed by matrix-assisted desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Initial attempt at endoscopic biliary drainage failed, and the patient underwent percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and subsequent stone removal. He occasionally ingested raw fish and had a history of gastric ulcer with acid suppression therapy, which could be possible risk factors for L. garvieae infection. This is the first case of L. garvieae bacteremia in acute cholangitis.
RESUMEN
Background@#/Aim: The aim of this study was to compare clinical features of hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTGAP) with those of biliary acute pancreatitis (BAP) and alcoholic acute pancreatitis (AAP), respectively. @*Methods@#Medical records of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) who were admitted to our institution from January 2014 to December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Disease severity and local complications were evaluated according to the 2012 Revised Atlanta Classification. Systemic complications were evaluated according to the Modified Marshall Scoring System. @*Results@#Of the total 610 patients with AP, those with BAP, AAP, and HTGAP were 310 (50.8%), 144 (23.6%), and 17 (2.8%), respectively. Compared with BAP, HTGAP showed higher proportion of moderately severe acute pancreatitis (MSAP) (64.7% vs. 28.1%, p<0.001) and severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) (17.6% vs. 5.5%, p <0.001). And HTGAP showed more local complications (76.5% vs. 26.8%, p<0.001) and higher recurrence rate (52.9% vs. 6.5%, p <0.001), but there was no significant difference in systemic complications (23.5% vs. 11.6%, p =0.140). Contrarily, there was no significant difference between HTGAP and AAP with respect to disease severity (64.7% vs. 63.9% in MSAP and 17.6% vs. 6.9% in SAP, p =0.181), local complications (76.5% vs. 67.4%, p =0.445), recurrence rate (52.9% vs. 32.6%, p =0.096), and systemic complications (23.5% vs. 11.5%, p =0.233). @*Conclusions@#HTGAP showed higher disease severity, more local complications, and higher recurrence rate than BAP. However, there was no significant difference in clinical features between HTGAP and BAP.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on indication for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Recently, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) proposed criteria for “difficult biliary cannulation” during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of the ESGE criteria from the perspective of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). @*Methods@#An ERCP database was prospectively maintained between November 2014 and December 2015 across six teaching hospitals in South Korea. The ESGE criteria (biliary cannulation time, the number of cannulation attempts, and inadvertent pancreatic duct [PD] manipulation) were recorded in this database as well as other technical factors. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PEP. Then, the PEP prediction model was investigated using decision tree analysis. @*Results@#We analyzed 1,067 consecutive patients with naïve papilla. The overall rate of PEP was 6.6%. Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.860; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.124 to 3.078), a selective biliary cannulation duration >5 minutes (OR, 3.282; 95% CI, 1.641 to 6.566), and inadvertent PD manipulation (OR, 2.614; 95% CI, 1.480 to 4.617) were significant factors affecting PEP. Decision tree analysis revealed that biliary cannulation time (χ2 =49.857, p5 minutes, and >5 minutes with inadvertent PD manipulation, respectively. @*Conclusions@#Biliary cannulation time and inadvertent PD manipulation could be relevant indicators of PEP, and 5 minutes might be used as a cutoff value for the implementation of the rescue cannulation technique.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#Recently, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) proposed criteria for “difficult biliary cannulation” during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aimed to investigate the clinical relevance of the ESGE criteria from the perspective of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). @*Methods@#An ERCP database was prospectively maintained between November 2014 and December 2015 across six teaching hospitals in South Korea. The ESGE criteria (biliary cannulation time, the number of cannulation attempts, and inadvertent pancreatic duct [PD] manipulation) were recorded in this database as well as other technical factors. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for PEP. Then, the PEP prediction model was investigated using decision tree analysis. @*Results@#We analyzed 1,067 consecutive patients with naïve papilla. The overall rate of PEP was 6.6%. Multivariate analysis revealed that female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.860; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.124 to 3.078), a selective biliary cannulation duration >5 minutes (OR, 3.282; 95% CI, 1.641 to 6.566), and inadvertent PD manipulation (OR, 2.614; 95% CI, 1.480 to 4.617) were significant factors affecting PEP. Decision tree analysis revealed that biliary cannulation time (χ2 =49.857, p5 minutes, and >5 minutes with inadvertent PD manipulation, respectively. @*Conclusions@#Biliary cannulation time and inadvertent PD manipulation could be relevant indicators of PEP, and 5 minutes might be used as a cutoff value for the implementation of the rescue cannulation technique.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#The aim of this in vivo animal study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dedicated cold snare (DCS) compared with those of traditional snare (TS) for cold snare polypectomy (CSP). @*Methods@#A total of 36 diminutive (5 mm) and 36 small (9 mm) pseudolesions were made by electrocoagulation in the colons of mini-pigs. @*Results@#For the diminutive lesions, there were no significant differences in technical success rate, procedure time, or complete resection rate between the DCS and TS groups; the rate of uneven resection margin in the DCS group was significantly lower than that of the TS group. For small lesions, technical success rate and complete resection rate were significantly higher in the DCS group than in the TS group (100% [18/18] vs. 55.6% [10/18], p=0.003; 94.4% [17/18] vs. 40% [4/10], p=0.006). In addition, the procedure duration was significantly shorter, and the rate of uneven resection margin was significantly lower in the DCS group (28.5 sec vs. 66.0 sec, p=0.006; 11.1% [2/18] vs. 100% [10/10], p<0.001). Two cases of perforation occurred in the DCS group. Multivariate analysis revealed that DCS use was independently associated with complete resection. @*Conclusions@#DCS is superior to TS in terms of technical success, complete resection, and reducing the duration of the procedure for CSP of small polyps.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.
RESUMEN
Background/Aims@#The aim of this in vivo animal study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dedicated cold snare (DCS) compared with those of traditional snare (TS) for cold snare polypectomy (CSP). @*Methods@#A total of 36 diminutive (5 mm) and 36 small (9 mm) pseudolesions were made by electrocoagulation in the colons of mini-pigs. @*Results@#For the diminutive lesions, there were no significant differences in technical success rate, procedure time, or complete resection rate between the DCS and TS groups; the rate of uneven resection margin in the DCS group was significantly lower than that of the TS group. For small lesions, technical success rate and complete resection rate were significantly higher in the DCS group than in the TS group (100% [18/18] vs. 55.6% [10/18], p=0.003; 94.4% [17/18] vs. 40% [4/10], p=0.006). In addition, the procedure duration was significantly shorter, and the rate of uneven resection margin was significantly lower in the DCS group (28.5 sec vs. 66.0 sec, p=0.006; 11.1% [2/18] vs. 100% [10/10], p<0.001). Two cases of perforation occurred in the DCS group. Multivariate analysis revealed that DCS use was independently associated with complete resection. @*Conclusions@#DCS is superior to TS in terms of technical success, complete resection, and reducing the duration of the procedure for CSP of small polyps.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a task force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in eight categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues.This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor requires a strict recommendation for its proper use in clinical practice because of its technical difficulty and invasiveness. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to draft clinical practice guidelines for EUS-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid tumor. The strength of recommendation and the level of evidence for each statement were graded according to the Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. The committee, comprising a development panel of 16 endosonographers and an expert on guideline development methodology, developed 12 evidence-based recommendations in 8 categories intended to help physicians make evidence-based clinical judgments with regard to the diagnosis of pancreatic solid tumor. This clinical practice guideline discusses EUS-guided sampling in pancreatic solid tumor and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use, technical issues related to maximizing the diagnostic yield (e.g., needle type, needle diameter, adequate number of needle passes, sample obtaining techniques, and methods of specimen processing), adverse events of EUS-guided tissue acquisition, and learning-related issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This guideline may not be applicable for all clinical situations and should be interpreted in light of specific situations and the availability of resources. It will be revised as necessary to cover progress and changes in technology and evidence from clinical practice.