Literature DB >> 16843076

Multicentre retrospective study on endoscopic ultrasound complications.

E Buscarini1, C De Angelis, P G Arcidiacono, R Rocca, G Lupinacci, R Manta, P Carucci, A Repici, S Carrara, D Vallisa, L Buscarini, F Cosentino, A Pera, M Rizzetto, P A Testoni, A Zambelli.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography, both conventional and interventional, has been used increasingly during the past 20 years and is deemed a safe technique. Its complication rate, however, has been studied to only a limited extent. This multicentre investigation sought to establish the complication rate for a large number of endoscopic ultrasonography procedures.
METHODS: By means of a questionnaire, we collected data from six centres on the number of endoscopic ultrasonography examinations performed and divided them into conventional and interventional examinations of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Information was obtained on technical modalities such as instruments and sedation and, for interventional endoscopic ultrasonography, indications, pre-procedural exams and technical details (needle calibre, number of passes) had to be specified. Complications were classified as mild, moderate, severe or fatal and their onset as immediate, early or late. Variables that entered into the analysis of complication rate included type of endoscopic ultrasonography instrument used, type and site of lesion biopsied, number of needle passes and operator experience.
RESULTS: Eleven thousand five hundred thirty nine endoscopic ultrasonographic procedures were reported, of which 10,731 were conventional and 808 interventional. No deaths occurred; there were 14 (0.12%) complications, 5 (0.046%) of them following conventional endoscopic ultrasonography and 9 (1.11%) after interventional endoscopic ultrasonography. Seven complications were mild, four moderate and three severe.
CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional and interventional endoscopic ultrasonography were confirmed to be acceptably safe techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16843076     DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2006.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Liver Dis        ISSN: 1590-8658            Impact factor:   4.088


  5 in total

1.  Endoscopic management of iatrogenic duodenal perforation with linear-probe echoendoscope.

Authors:  Omar S Khokhar; Dennis T Nguyen; Lynt Johnson; Reena Jha; Nadim G Haddad
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-10

2.  Difficult pyloric intubation during EUS: Forward viewing echoendoscope to the rescue (with videos).

Authors:  Phonthep Angsuwatcharakon; Ben S Singh; Irina M Cazacu; Brian R Weston; Manoop S Bhutani
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.628

3.  Predicting what can go wrong at endoscopic ultrasound: a large series experience.

Authors:  Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Konstantinos Varytimiadis; John Meenan
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-11-20

Review 4.  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

5.  Endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer: current and future perspectives.

Authors:  Claudio De Angelis; Rosario Francesco Brizzi; Rinaldo Pellicano
Journal:  J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2013-06
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.