BACKGROUND: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endsocopy (ASGE) guidelines for assessing minimal competence in EUS are based on expert opinion and retrospective studies. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively define learning curves in EUS among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs). DESIGN: Prospective trial. SETTING: Three tertiary-care referral centers. PATIENTS: AETs with no prior EUS experience. INTERVENTION: AETs were evaluated by attending endosonographers at intervals of 10 EUS examinations (beginning at the 25th examination) during a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used to grade examination of EUS anatomic stations and, when applicable, lesion of interest, accurate uTNM staging, wall layer origin of subepithelial lesions, and technical success with FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cumulative sum analysis was applied to assess competency and produce a learning curve for each trainee for overall performance and for each anatomic station. Acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively, were used. RESULTS: Five AETs were included, with a total of 1412 EUS examinations (AET1-225, T2-175, T3-402, T4-315, T5-295). Two AETs crossed the threshold for acceptable performance at cases number 255 and 295, two AETs showed a trend toward acceptable performance after 225 and 196 cases but needed ongoing training, and 1 AET demonstrated the need for ongoing training after 402 cases. Similar variable results were noted for individual stations. LIMITATIONS: Results from this study may not be generalizable to other centers' AETs. CONCLUSION: We observed substantial variability in achieving competency and a consistent need for more supervision in all AETs than current recommendations (150 cases). Future studies should focus on standardization of trainee performance, definition of competency, and widespread applicability of AET evaluation.
BACKGROUND: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endsocopy (ASGE) guidelines for assessing minimal competence in EUS are based on expert opinion and retrospective studies. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively define learning curves in EUS among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs). DESIGN: Prospective trial. SETTING: Three tertiary-care referral centers. PATIENTS: AETs with no prior EUS experience. INTERVENTION: AETs were evaluated by attending endosonographers at intervals of 10 EUS examinations (beginning at the 25th examination) during a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used to grade examination of EUS anatomic stations and, when applicable, lesion of interest, accurate uTNM staging, wall layer origin of subepithelial lesions, and technical success with FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Cumulative sum analysis was applied to assess competency and produce a learning curve for each trainee for overall performance and for each anatomic station. Acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively, were used. RESULTS: Five AETs were included, with a total of 1412 EUS examinations (AET1-225, T2-175, T3-402, T4-315, T5-295). Two AETs crossed the threshold for acceptable performance at cases number 255 and 295, two AETs showed a trend toward acceptable performance after 225 and 196 cases but needed ongoing training, and 1 AET demonstrated the need for ongoing training after 402 cases. Similar variable results were noted for individual stations. LIMITATIONS: Results from this study may not be generalizable to other centers' AETs. CONCLUSION: We observed substantial variability in achieving competency and a consistent need for more supervision in all AETs than current recommendations (150 cases). Future studies should focus on standardization of trainee performance, definition of competency, and widespread applicability of AET evaluation.
Authors: Sunil G Sheth; Darwin L Conwell; David C Whitcomb; Matthew Alsante; Michelle A Anderson; Jamie Barkin; Randall Brand; Gregory A Cote; Steven D Freedman; Andres Gelrud; Fred Gorelick; Linda S Lee; Katherine Morgan; Stephen Pandol; Vikesh K Singh; Dhiraj Yadav; C Mel Wilcox; Phil A Hart Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Alicia S Borggreve; Lucas Goense; Hylke J F Brenkman; Stella Mook; Gert J Meijer; Frank J Wessels; Marcel Verheij; Edwin P M Jansen; Richard van Hillegersberg; Peter S N van Rossum; Jelle P Ruurda Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-03-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Sachin Wani; Rajesh Keswani; Matt Hall; Samuel Han; Meer Akbar Ali; Brian Brauer; Linda Carlin; Amitabh Chak; Dan Collins; Gregory A Cote; David L Diehl; Christopher J DiMaio; Andrew Dries; Ihab El-Hajj; Swan Ellert; Kimberley Fairley; Ashley Faulx; Larissa Fujii-Lau; Srinivas Gaddam; Seng-Ian Gan; Jonathan P Gaspar; Chitiki Gautamy; Stuart Gordon; Cynthia Harris; Sarah Hyder; Ross Jones; Stephen Kim; Srinadh Komanduri; Ryan Law; Linda Lee; Rawad Mounzer; Daniel Mullady; V Raman Muthusamy; Mojtaba Olyaee; Patrick Pfau; Shreyas Saligram; Cyrus Piraka; Amit Rastogi; Laura Rosenkranz; Fadi Rzouq; Aditi Saxena; Raj J Shah; Violette C Simon; Aaron Small; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah; Andrew Walker; Andrew Y Wang; Rabindra R Watson; Robert H Wilson; Patrick Yachimski; Dennis Yang; Steven Edmundowicz; Dayna S Early Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Rajesh N Keswani; Jody D Ciolino; David P Grande; Zoe I Listernick; Dustin A Carlson; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Andrew J Gawron; C Prakash Gyawali; Philip O Katz; David Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 11.382