Literature DB >> 15332028

Acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a pooled analysis from EUS centers in the United States.

Mohamad A Eloubeidi1, Frank G Gress, Thomas J Savides, Maurits J Wiersema, Michael L Kochman, Nuzhat A Ahmad, Gregory G Ginsberg, Richard A Erickson, John Dewitt, Jacques Van Dam, Nicholas J Nickl, Michael J Levy, Jonathan E Clain, Amitabh Chak, Michael V Sivak, Richard Wong, Gerard Isenberg, James M Scheiman, Brenna Bounds, Michael B Kimmey, Michael D Saunders, Kenneth J Chang, Ashish Sharma, Phoniex Nguyen, John G Lee, Steven A Edmundowicz, Dayna Early, Riad Azar, Babak Etemad, Yang K Chen, Irving Waxman, Vanessa Shami, Mark F Catalano, C Mel Wilcox.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and the severity of pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. A survey of centers that offer training in EUS in the United States was conducted.
METHODS: A list of centers in which training in EUS is offered was obtained from the Web site of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Designated program directors were contacted via e-mail. The information requested included the number of EUS-guided FNA procedures performed for solid pancreatic masses, the number of cases of post-procedure pancreatitis, and the method for tracking complications. For each episode of pancreatitis, technical details were obtained about the procedure, including the location of the mass, the type of fine needle used, the number of needle passes, and the nature of the lesion.
RESULTS: Nineteen of the 27 programs contacted returned the questionnaire (70%). In total, 4909 EUS-guided FNAs of solid pancreatic masses were performed in these 19 centers over a mean of 4 years (range 11 months to 9 years). Pancreatitis occurred after 14 (0.29%): 95% CI[0.16, 0.48] procedures. At two centers in which data on complications were prospectively collected, the frequency of acute pancreatitis was 0.64%, suggesting that the frequency of pancreatitis in the retrospective cohort (0.26%) was under-reported (p=0.22). The odds that cases of pancreatitis would be reported were 2.45 greater for the prospective compared with the retrospective cohort (95% CI[0.55, 10.98]). The median duration of hospitalization for treatment of pancreatitis was 3 days (range 1-21 days). The pancreatitis was classified as mild in 10 cases, moderate in 3, and severe in one; one death (proximate cause, pulmonary embolism) occurred after the development of pancreatitis in a patient with multiple comorbid conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses is infrequently associated with acute pancreatitis. The procedure appears to be safe when performed by experienced endosonographers. The frequency of post EUS-guided FNA pancreatitis may be underestimated by retrospective analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15332028     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01714-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  30 in total

1.  Combined ERCP and EUS in one session is safe in elderly patients when compared to non-elderly patients: outcomes in 206 combined procedures.

Authors:  Lulu Iles-Shih; Kristen Hilden; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Safety of same-day endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under conscious sedation.

Authors:  Kendrick Che; Natasha Muckova; Snorri Olafsson; Wichit Srikureja
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Complications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for pancreatic lesions.

Authors:  Kenji Yamao
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 4.  Diagnostic approach to patients with acute idiopathic and recurrent pancreatitis, what should be done?

Authors:  Mohammad Al-Haddad; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Minimizing complications in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy.

Authors:  Olga Barkay; Mouen Khashab; Mohammad Al-Haddad; Evan L Fogel
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2009-04

6.  Quality indicators for EUS.

Authors:  Sachin Wani; Michael B Wallace; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; Michael L Kochman; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Jeffrey L Tokar
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  The role of endoscopic ultrasound in biliary obstruction.

Authors:  Lennart Choo; Jason Conway; Girish Mishra
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2012-12

8.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses with rapid on-site cytological evaluation by endosonographers without attendance of cytopathologists.

Authors:  Takuto Hikichi; Atsushi Irisawa; Manoop S Bhutani; Tadayuki Takagi; Goro Shibukawa; Go Yamamoto; Takeru Wakatsuki; Hidemichi Imamura; Yuta Takahashi; Ai Sato; Masaki Sato; Tsunehiko Ikeda; Yuko Hashimoto; Kazuhiro Tasaki; Kazuo Watanabe; Hiromasa Ohira; Katsutoshi Obara
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-10       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 9.  Pancreatico-biliary endoscopic ultrasound: a systematic review of the levels of evidence, performance and outcomes.

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Dimitrios Kypraios; Giancarlo Caletti; Mohamad A Eloubeidi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: assessment of safety and prevention of complications.

Authors:  Christian Jenssen; Maria Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Bertrand Napoléon; Siegbert Faiss
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.