RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that the wet suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry suction technique. However, conclusions of wet suction on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are still controversial. Besides, the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB has not been determined. We aimed to design a large multicenter randomized trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) using 22G Franseen needles and determine the optimal number of passes required for EUS-FNB. METHODS: This is a multi-center open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. Two hundred patients with SPLs will undergo EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needles in 4 tertiary hospitals in China and will be randomly assigned to the dry suction group and wet suction group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary endpoints include the optimal number of needle passes, sensitivity, specificity, specimen quality, cytological diagnoses, time of the procedure, and incidence of complications. DISCUSSION: This study has been designed to determine (i) whether EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needle with dry suction is non-inferior to wet suction in terms of diagnostic accuracy and (ii) the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB of SPLs using 22G Franseen needle. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05549856. Registered on September 22, 2022.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Epicardial ablation is an important approach in the management of patients with complex ventricular arrhythmias. Irrigated ablation catheters present a challenge in this potential space due to fluid accumulation that can cause hemodynamic compromise, requiring frequent manual fluid aspiration. In this series, we report our initial experience with the use of a dry suction water seal system for pericardial fluid management during epicardial ablation. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation at a single center were included. All patients underwent epicardial access via a subxiphoid approach with a single operator. A deflectable sheath was advanced into the pericardial space, and the side port was attached to a dry suction water seal system attached to wall suction at -20 mmHg. Procedural information including patient characteristics, outcomes, and adverse events. After a period of initial experience, pericardial fluid infusion and aspiration volumes were recorded. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included in this series. All patients underwent epicardial ablation with complete success achieved in 8 of the 11 patients and partial success in the remaining patients. Pericardial fluid intake ranging from 485 to 3050 mL with aspiration of 350-3050 mL using the dry suction water seal system. No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Dry suction water seal drainage systems can provide a safe strategy for efficient pericardial fluid management during epicardial VT ablation, potentially shortening procedure duration.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82-5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75-1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%-62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%- 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82-16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy is widely applied, there is no clear consensus on the optimal biopsy technique. We described a modified wet suction technique (MWEST) with the aim to compare the efficacy and safety between MWEST and the dry suction technique (DST). METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded study, patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy were randomized to the DST (group A) or MWEST (group B) for the first pass, and the two techniques were performed alternately. The primary outcome was the comparison of specimen adequacy and diagnostic yield between the techniques. Secondary outcomes included the macroscopic visible core length, blood contamination of specimens, and adverse events of both techniques. RESULTS: From January 2019 to September 2019, 216 passes were performed in 50 patients. The specimen adequacy was significantly higher in "per-lesion" (P = 0.026), "per-pass" (cytology: P = 0.034; histology: P = 0.042), and first-pass analysis (P = 0.034) for MWEST than for DST. In diagnostic yield, MWEST showed significantly superior histological yield (P = 0.014) and first-pass analysis (κ: MWEST: 0.743 and DST: 0.519) compared with DST. The median macroscopic visible core lengths were 8 mm (interquartile range: 3.25-15 mm) and 10 mm (interquartile range: 5.25-15 mm) for DST and MWEST, respectively (P = 0.036). Blood contamination was significantly more serious in DST than in MWEST (cytology: P = 0.021; histology: P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with MWEST resulted in significantly better quality of specimen, histological, and first-pass diagnostic yields and comparable safety compared with the DST. MWEST is preferred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic solid lesions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several suction techniques have been developed recently to enhance tissue acquisition when sampling solid lesions using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study is to determine whether a new modified wet suction technique (MWST) compared with the conventional dry suction technique (DRST) shall present better outcomes with respect to diagnostic yield and specimen quality of solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted at four large tertiary care centers in China. Two hundred and ninety-six patients with solid lesions referred for EUS-FNA will be randomly assigned to group A, using DRST for the first pass, or group B, using MWST for the first pass in a ratio of 1:1. Following a 2 × 2 cross-over design, the pass sequence for group A is DRST, MWST, DRST, MWST. For group B, the pass sequence is MWST, DRST, MWST, DRST. All procedures will be performed by experienced echoendoscopists, and the patients and assessors (cytologists and pathologists) will be blinded during the entire study. The primary outcome measure is the diagnosis yield. Secondary outcome measures are specimen quality, including assessment of quantity of cell, tissue integrity, and blood contamination. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized controlled trial to compare MWST with DRST when sampling solid lesions in the intra-abdomen and mediastinum. The results may contribute to future multicenter clinical trials in standardizing suction techniques during EUS-FNA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov, NCT02789371 . Retrospectively registered on 6 June 2016.

Asunto(s)