A Aziz Aadam1, Young S Oh2, Vinod B Shidham3, Abdul Khan2, Bryan Hunt3, Nagarjun Rao3, Ying Zhang4, Sergey Tarima4, Kulwinder S Dua5. 1. Department of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 9200 West Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53226, USA. kdua@mcw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior to withdrawing the EUS-FNA needle from the lesion, the stopcock of the suction syringe is closed to reduce contamination. Residual negative pressure (RNP) may persist in the needle despite closing the stopcock. AIMS: To determine whether neutralizing RNP before withdrawing the needle will improve the cytology yield. METHODS: Bench-top testing was done to confirm the presence of RNP followed by a prospective, randomized, cross-over study on patients with pancreas mass. Ten milliliters of suction was applied to the FNA needle. Before withdrawing the needle from the lesion, the stopcock was closed. Based on randomization, the first pass was done with the stopcock either attached to the needle (S+) or disconnected (S-) to allow air to enter and neutralize RNP and accordingly the second pass was crossed over to S+ or S-. On-site cytopathologist was blinded to S+/S-. RESULTS: Bench tests confirmed the presence of RNP which was successfully neutralized by disconnecting the syringe (S-) from the needle. Sixty patients were enrolled, 120 samples analyzed. S+ samples showed significantly greater GI tract contamination compared to S- samples (16.7 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03). Of the 53 patients confirmed to have pancreas adenocarcinoma, FNA using S- approach was positive in 49 (93%) compared to 40 using the S+ approach (76%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite closing the stopcock of the suction syringe, RNP is present in the FNA needle. Neutralizing RNP prior to withdrawing the needle from the target lesion significantly decreased GI tract contamination of the sample thereby improving the FNA cytology yield. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01995474.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Prior to withdrawing the EUS-FNA needle from the lesion, the stopcock of the suction syringe is closed to reduce contamination. Residual negative pressure (RNP) may persist in the needle despite closing the stopcock. AIMS: To determine whether neutralizing RNP before withdrawing the needle will improve the cytology yield. METHODS: Bench-top testing was done to confirm the presence of RNP followed by a prospective, randomized, cross-over study on patients with pancreas mass. Ten milliliters of suction was applied to the FNA needle. Before withdrawing the needle from the lesion, the stopcock was closed. Based on randomization, the first pass was done with the stopcock either attached to the needle (S+) or disconnected (S-) to allow air to enter and neutralize RNP and accordingly the second pass was crossed over to S+ or S-. On-site cytopathologist was blinded to S+/S-. RESULTS: Bench tests confirmed the presence of RNP which was successfully neutralized by disconnecting the syringe (S-) from the needle. Sixty patients were enrolled, 120 samples analyzed. S+ samples showed significantly greater GI tract contamination compared to S- samples (16.7 vs. 6.7%, p = 0.03). Of the 53 patients confirmed to have pancreas adenocarcinoma, FNA using S- approach was positive in 49 (93%) compared to 40 using the S+ approach (76%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite closing the stopcock of the suction syringe, RNP is present in the FNA needle. Neutralizing RNP prior to withdrawing the needle from the target lesion significantly decreased GI tract contamination of the sample thereby improving the FNA cytology yield. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01995474.
Authors: Jun Kyu Lee; Jong Hak Choi; Kwang Hyuck Lee; Kwang Min Kim; Jae Uk Shin; Jong Kyun Lee; Kyu Taek Lee; Kee-Taek Jang Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-02-21 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Julio Iglesias-Garcia; J Enrique Dominguez-Munoz; Ihab Abdulkader; Jose Larino-Noia; Elena Eugenyeva; Antonio Lozano-Leon; Jeronimo Forteza-Vila Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sachin Wani; Dayna Early; Julie Kunkel; Ann Leathersich; Christine E Hovis; Thomas G Hollander; Cara Kohlmeier; Cynthia Zelenka; Riad Azar; Steven Edmundowicz; Brian Collins; Jingxia Liu; Matthew Hall; Daniel Mullady Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Kirsten M W Woolf; Hua Liang; Zachary J Sletten; Donna K Russell; Thomas A Bonfiglio; Zhongren Zhou Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 5.284