OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an established tool in the management of gastrointestinal diseases. The majority of EUS procedures are performed in tertiary care hospitals but the technology has also disseminated to community hospitals. The data from community hospitals are limited and there are no published studies comparing EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) outcomes in community versus tertiary settings. Our objective is to compare EUS procedures performed in these two separate settings. METHODS: EUS procedures performed for pancreatobiliary indications in an academic tertiary care hospital and a community hospital were retrospectively reviewed and compared. The patient demographics, procedure time, procedure indications, FNA performed, pass counts, needle size, rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) and final cytological diagnosis were compared between the two centers. Cytological diagnosis was categorized as satisfactory and unsatisfactory samples. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient age, gender, indications, procedure time, FNA performed, needle size, or pass counts between the tertiary hospital (n = 361) and community hospital (n = 119). ROSE was a significant determinant factor for adequacy of sample. There was a positive linear relationship between adequacy of the sample and number of pass counts. After performing a logistic regression and adjusting for target site, the overall odds of having an unsatisfactory specimen were not significantly different at the two centers (OR 0.51, CI 0.23-1.17, p = 0.11). Percentages of unsatisfactory samples were not significantly different at the two centers for solid lesions (7.4 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.33), cysts (33.3 vs. 23.8%, p = 0.31,) or lymph nodes (25.0 vs. 0%, p = 0.063). CONCLUSION: Cytological yield of EUS-FNA in a community hospital is similar to that of a tertiary hospital. Community hospitals can provide EUS services with reasonable success.
OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an established tool in the management of gastrointestinal diseases. The majority of EUS procedures are performed in tertiary care hospitals but the technology has also disseminated to community hospitals. The data from community hospitals are limited and there are no published studies comparing EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) outcomes in community versus tertiary settings. Our objective is to compare EUS procedures performed in these two separate settings. METHODS: EUS procedures performed for pancreatobiliary indications in an academic tertiary care hospital and a community hospital were retrospectively reviewed and compared. The patient demographics, procedure time, procedure indications, FNA performed, pass counts, needle size, rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) and final cytological diagnosis were compared between the two centers. Cytological diagnosis was categorized as satisfactory and unsatisfactory samples. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in patient age, gender, indications, procedure time, FNA performed, needle size, or pass counts between the tertiary hospital (n = 361) and community hospital (n = 119). ROSE was a significant determinant factor for adequacy of sample. There was a positive linear relationship between adequacy of the sample and number of pass counts. After performing a logistic regression and adjusting for target site, the overall odds of having an unsatisfactory specimen were not significantly different at the two centers (OR 0.51, CI 0.23-1.17, p = 0.11). Percentages of unsatisfactory samples were not significantly different at the two centers for solid lesions (7.4 vs. 3.1%, p = 0.33), cysts (33.3 vs. 23.8%, p = 0.31,) or lymph nodes (25.0 vs. 0%, p = 0.063). CONCLUSION: Cytological yield of EUS-FNA in a community hospital is similar to that of a tertiary hospital. Community hospitals can provide EUS services with reasonable success.
Authors: G M Eisen; J A Dominitz; D O Faigel; J A Goldstein; B T Petersen; H M Raddawi; M E Ryan; J J Vargo; H S Young; J Wheeler-Harbaugh; R H Hawes; W R Brugge; J G Carrougher; A Chak; D O Faigel; M L Kochman; T J Savides; M B Wallace; M J Wiersema; R A Erickson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William R Brugge; Kent Lewandrowski; Elizabeth Lee-Lewandrowski; Barbara A Centeno; Tara Szydlo; Susan Regan; Carlos Fernandez del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Shyam Varadarajulu; Shilpa Desai; Rhett Shirley; Martin J Heslin; Mohit Mehra; Juan P Arnoletti; Isam Eltoum; Charles M Wilcox; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Maria S Altieri; Jie Yang; Donald Groves; Donglei Yin; Kristen Cagino; Mark Talamini; Aurora Pryor Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 4.584