Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2013
A prospective, comparative trial to optimize sampling techniques in EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Jun Kyu, Choi Jong Hak, Lee Kwang Hyuck, Kim Kwang Min, Shin Jae Uk, Lee Jong Kyun, Lee Kyu Taek, Jang Kee-Taek
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is no standardization of the use of suction during puncturing of a target in pancreatic EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). It is also debatable whether expressing aspirates from the needle by the traditional method of reinserting the stylet is more effective than by air flushing, which is easier and safer.
OBJECTIVE: To optimize sampling techniques in pancreatic EUS-FNA.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses.
INTERVENTION: Four punctures were performed for each mass in random order by a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sample quality and diagnostic yield were compared between samples with suction (S+) versus no suction (S-) and expressed by reinserting the stylet (RS) versus air flushing (AF).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sample quality by the number of diagnostic samples, cellularity, bloodiness, and air-drying artifact; diagnostic yield by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
RESULTS: The number of diagnostic samples (72.8% vs 58.6%; P = .001), cellularity (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.30; P < .001), bloodiness (OR 1.46; CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001), accuracy (85.2% vs 75.9%; P = .004), and sensitivity (82.4% vs 72.1%; P = .005) were higher in S+ than in S-. Bloodiness was lower in AF than in RS (OR 1.16; CI, 1.03-1.30; P = .017).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center trial, 2 kinds of needle gauges, and no immediate cytopathology evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Puncturing with suction and expressing by air flushing may be used preferentially in pancreatic EUS-FNA because they were more effective and convenient techniques. (
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01354795.).
OBJECTIVE: To optimize sampling techniques in pancreatic EUS-FNA.
DESIGN: Prospective, comparative trial.
SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center.
PATIENTS: Eighty-one consecutive patients with solid pancreatic masses.
INTERVENTION: Four punctures were performed for each mass in random order by a 2 × 2 factorial design. Sample quality and diagnostic yield were compared between samples with suction (S+) versus no suction (S-) and expressed by reinserting the stylet (RS) versus air flushing (AF).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sample quality by the number of diagnostic samples, cellularity, bloodiness, and air-drying artifact; diagnostic yield by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.
RESULTS: The number of diagnostic samples (72.8% vs 58.6%; P = .001), cellularity (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-3.30; P < .001), bloodiness (OR 1.46; CI, 1.28-1.68; P < .001), accuracy (85.2% vs 75.9%; P = .004), and sensitivity (82.4% vs 72.1%; P = .005) were higher in S+ than in S-. Bloodiness was lower in AF than in RS (OR 1.16; CI, 1.03-1.30; P = .017).
LIMITATIONS: Single-center trial, 2 kinds of needle gauges, and no immediate cytopathology evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Puncturing with suction and expressing by air flushing may be used preferentially in pancreatic EUS-FNA because they were more effective and convenient techniques. (
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01354795.).