Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. RESULTS: 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

Endoscopic minor papilla sphincterotomy in patients with santoriniceles reduces pain and improves quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Pancreas divisum patients with focal obstruction of the minor papilla and resulting dilation of the dorsal pancreatic duct [a santorinicele (SC)] have been reported to improve with endoscopic sphincterotomy of the minor papilla (ESMP). In this study, we assess the long-term efficacy of ESMP in SC patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of the endoscopic database was performed. Fifteen patients with SCs were identified. A follow-up questionnaire was mailed to patients to assess for changes in quality of life (QOL), narcotic use, hospital admissions, and pain after ESMP. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were mailed questionnaires and 11 responses were obtained. The average pain score prior to ESMP was 8.6/10 (SD ± 1.7) and significantly decreased to 2.7/10 (SD ± 2.0) (p < 0.05) after treatment. Six patients required narcotics before ESMP and none used narcotics for recurrent pancreatic type pain after. Nine patients had recurring admissions for pancreatitis prior to ESMP while only two were admitted after treatment. Mean QOL score prior to ESMP was 4.5/10 (SD ± 2.7) and increased significantly to 8.4/10 (SD ± 1.3) (p < 0.05) with two patients rating their QOL at 10/10. CONCLUSIONS: QOL, narcotic use, hospital admissions, and pain scores all improved with ESMP. Endoscopic therapy for this uncommon condition appears both justified and potentially curative.

The Effect of Covid-19 Pandemic on Current and Future Endoscopic Personal Protective Equipment Practices: A National Survey of 77 Endoscopists.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised awareness about the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE). We aimed to study and compare PPE practices among Canadian endoscopists before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A 74-item questionnaire was emailed from June 2020 to September 2020 to practicing endoscopists in Canada. Survey questions collected basic demographics and differences between PPE practices pre- and post-COVID-19. PPE practices were categorized into four endoscopic procedure types including upper or lower endoscopy and diagnostic or interventional. Outcomes for specific procedures were reported as rates, with ranges shown when evaluating all procedure types together. Results: A total of 77 respondents completed the survey with the majority of respondents aged 40 to 49 (44%) and identifying as Gastroenterologists (70%). Gender was evenly split (49% females versus 51% males). In the pre-pandemic era, the majority of endoscopists wore gowns (91 to 94%) and all endoscopists wore gloves (100%). However, the majority of endoscopists did not wear surgical masks (21 to 31%), face shields (13 to 34%), eye protection (13 to 21%), hair protection (11 to 13%), or N95 respirators (2 to 3%). In the post-pandemic era, more surgeons plan on wearing face shields (33 to 47%, P = 0.001 to 0.045), goggles (38.5 to 58.7%, P < 0.001), hair protection (33 to 36%, P = 0.011 to 0.024), and a trend suggests more surgeons will wear surgical masks (51 to 61%, P = 0.163 to 0.333). More endoscopists also plan on wearing N95 respirators during lower endoscopy (6 to 7%, P < 0.005). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the attitudes of many endoscopists regarding future PPE use in routine endoscopy. Ongoing studies are needed to inform new post-pandemic PPE consensus guidelines.