MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: randomized controlled trial

Chong CCN, Lakhtakia S, Nguyen N, Hara K, Chan WK, Puri R, et al.

Endoscopy, 2020 10;52(10):856-863.
PMID: 32498098 DOI: 10.1055/a-1172-6027

BACKGROUND: The use of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) to estimate the adequacy of a specimen for histological diagnosis during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle tissue acquisition (FNTA) has recently been advocated. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yield of MOSE compared with conventional EUS-FNTA without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).
METHODS: This was an international, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled study. After providing informed consent, consecutive adult patients referred for EUS-FNTA for solid lesions larger than 2 cm were randomized to a MOSE arm or to a conventional arm without ROSE. A designated cytopathologist from each center performed all cytopathological examinations for that center and was blinded to the randomization results. The primary outcome measure was the diagnostic yield, and the secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy, and the rate of procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: 244 patients (122 conventional, 122 MOSE) were enrolled during the study period. No significant differences between the two arms were found in procedure time or rate of procedure-related adverse events. The diagnostic yield for the MOSE technique (92.6 %) was similar to that for the conventional technique (89.3 %; P = 0.37), with significantly fewer passes made (median: conventional 3, MOSE 2; P
Fulltext International consensus recommendations for difficult biliary access

Liao WC, Angsuwatcharakon P, Isayama H, Dhir V, Devereaux B, Khor CJ, et al.

Gastrointest Endosc, 2017 Feb;85(2):295-304.
PMID: 27720741 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.037
Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis. Part 2: Endoscopic management

Isayama H, Nakai Y, Rerknimitr R, Khor C, Lau J, Wang HP, et al.

J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016 Sep;31(9):1555-65.
PMID: 27042957 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13398

Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess, and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high-quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 27 experts from eight Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 2 of this statement focused on the endoscopic management of WON.
The Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis Part1: Epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment

Isayama H, Nakai Y, Rerknimitr R, Khor C, Lau J, Wang HP, et al.

J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016 Apr 4.
PMID: 27044023 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13394

Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a relatively new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high-quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 25 experts from 8 Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 1 of this statement focused on the epidemiology, diagnosis and timing of intervention.
Consensus guidelines on the optimal management in interventional EUS procedures: results from the Asian EUS group RAND/UCLA expert panel

Teoh AYB, Dhir V, Kida M, Yasuda I, Jin ZD, Seo DW, et al.

Gut, 2018 Jul;67(7):1209-1228.
PMID: 29463614 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314341

OBJECTIVES: Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures are gaining popularity and the most commonly performed procedures include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation. The aim of this paper is to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of the above procedures.
METHODS: Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.
RESULTS: A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.
CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.
Fulltext An international, multi-institution survey on performing EUS-FNA and fine needle biopsy

Guo J, Sahai AV, Teoh A, Arcidiacono PG, Larghi A, Saftoiu A, et al.

Endosc Ultrasound, 2020 9 5;9(5):319-328.
PMID: 32883921 DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_56_20

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are effective techniques that are widely used for tissue acquisition. However, it remains unclear how to obtain high-quality specimens. Therefore, we conducted a survey of EUS-FNA and FNB techniques to determine practice patterns worldwide and to develop strong recommendations based on the experience of experts in the field.
Methods: This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). The survey was administered by E-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Another questionnaire about the level of recommendation was designed to assess the respondents' answers.
Results: ISEUS-TF members developed a questionnaire containing 17 questions that was sent to 53 experts. Thirty-five experts completed the survey within the specified period. Among them, 40% and 54.3% performed 50-200 and more than 200 EUS sampling procedures annually, respectively. Some practice patterns regarding FNA/FNB were recommended.
Conclusion: This is the first worldwide survey of EUS-FNA and FNB practice patterns. The results showed wide variations in practice patterns. Randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for optimizing the FNA/FNB procedures.