BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing number of procedures being performed, there is no consensus on an optimal approach to EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) or interventions. OBJECTIVE: Validate an algorithmic approach to EUS-FNA/interventions with the objective of improving technical outcomes and resource use. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA and/or interventions. INTERVENTION: Phase I was a retrospective analysis of EUS-FNA/interventions performed in 548 patients. The 19-gauge needle was used for interventions, and the 22- or 25-gauge needle was used interchangeably for performing FNAs. At phase I, the technical failure rate was 11.5%. Based on these observations, an algorithm was proposed by which all transduodenal FNAs were performed by using a 25-gauge needle and other FNAs with a 22-gauge needle. All transduodenal interventions were performed with a Flexible 19-gauge needle and others with a standard 19-gauge needle. This algorithm was tested prospectively in phase II on 500 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Compare technical failure, diagnostic adequacy, procedural complications, and average needle costs between both phases. RESULTS: The technical failure rate was significantly less in phase II compared with that of phase I (1.6% vs 11.5%; P < .001) for both FNA (1.8% vs 10.9%; P < .001) and therapeutic interventions (0% vs 16.4%; P = .001). Although there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy (97.1% vs 98.4%; P = .191) or complications (0.4% vs 0.2%; P = 1.0) between phases I and II, the average cost per case was significantly less in phase II ($199.59 vs $188.30; P = .008). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: An algorithmic approach to EUS-FNA/interventions yielded better technical outcomes and cost savings without compromising diagnostic adequacy.
BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing number of procedures being performed, there is no consensus on an optimal approach to EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) or interventions. OBJECTIVE: Validate an algorithmic approach to EUS-FNA/interventions with the objective of improving technical outcomes and resource use. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA and/or interventions. INTERVENTION: Phase I was a retrospective analysis of EUS-FNA/interventions performed in 548 patients. The 19-gauge needle was used for interventions, and the 22- or 25-gauge needle was used interchangeably for performing FNAs. At phase I, the technical failure rate was 11.5%. Based on these observations, an algorithm was proposed by which all transduodenal FNAs were performed by using a 25-gauge needle and other FNAs with a 22-gauge needle. All transduodenal interventions were performed with a Flexible 19-gauge needle and others with a standard 19-gauge needle. This algorithm was tested prospectively in phase II on 500 patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Compare technical failure, diagnostic adequacy, procedural complications, and average needle costs between both phases. RESULTS: The technical failure rate was significantly less in phase II compared with that of phase I (1.6% vs 11.5%; P < .001) for both FNA (1.8% vs 10.9%; P < .001) and therapeutic interventions (0% vs 16.4%; P = .001). Although there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy (97.1% vs 98.4%; P = .191) or complications (0.4% vs 0.2%; P = 1.0) between phases I and II, the average cost per case was significantly less in phase II ($199.59 vs $188.30; P = .008). LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: An algorithmic approach to EUS-FNA/interventions yielded better technical outcomes and cost savings without compromising diagnostic adequacy.
Authors: Kanwar R Gill; Marwan S Ghabril; Laith H Jamil; Muhammad K Hasan; Rebecca B McNeil; Timothy A Woodward; Massimo Raimondo; Brenda J Hoffman; Robert H Hawes; Joseph Romagnuolo; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Uzma D Siddiqui; Federico Rossi; Lawrence S Rosenthal; Manmeet S Padda; Visvanathan Murali-Dharan; Harry R Aslanian Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Vivek Kumbhari; Irene Peñas; Alan H Tieu; Carlos De la Serna-Higuera; Manie Juneja; Fuad Maufa; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Mohamad H El-Zein; Nadim Haddad; Sandeep Krishnan; Susana Gonzalez; Peter V Renny; Payal Saxena; Linda Howard; Christopher J DiMaio; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Manuel Perez-Miranda; Mouen A Khashab Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: A Aziz Aadam; Young S Oh; Vinod B Shidham; Abdul Khan; Bryan Hunt; Nagarjun Rao; Ying Zhang; Sergey Tarima; Kulwinder S Dua Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-09-07 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Hyeon Jeong Goong; Jong Ho Moon; Hyun Jong Choi; Yun Nah Lee; Moon Han Choi; Hee Kyung Kim; Tae Hoon Lee; Sang-Woo Cha Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2015-09-23 Impact factor: 4.519