Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle for pancreatic tumors and peridigestive tract lesions: Retrospective single-center study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is vital for diagnosing pancreatic and peridigestive tract lesions. A new three-prong asymmetry tip needle has been developed for this procedure. In this study, we retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability, tissue collection volume, and procedural adverse events of the three-prong asymmetry tip needle for solid pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

METHODS

We analyzed the data of 58 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using a three-prong asymmetry tip needle between August 2022 and April 2023 at a single care center.

RESULTS

The tissue collection rate was 91.4% with 89.7% accuracy, 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 25% negative predictive value. No significant differences in collection rates or diagnostic performance were observed based on the target organ, puncture route, or lesion size. Using our original assessment method, the average histological core tissue score was 3.1 ± 0.8, whereas the blood contamination volume was 2.5 ± 0.8. Only one of 58 patients (1.7%) developed a pancreatic fistula of moderate severity as an adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

The three-prong asymmetry tip needle demonstrated good diagnostic capability and adequate sample volume with safety for pancreatic, subepithelial, and other organ lesions.

Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Opportunities and Challenges

Solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) encompass a variety of benign and malignant diseases and accurate diagnosis is crucial for guiding appropriate treatment decisions. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) serves as a front-line diagnostic tool for pancreatic mass lesions and is widely used in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a mathematical technique that automates the learning and recognition of data patterns. Its strong self-learning ability and unbiased nature have led to its gradual adoption in the medical field. In this paper, we describe the fundamentals of AI and provide a summary of reports on AI in EUS-FNA/B to help endoscopists understand and realize its potential in improving pathological diagnosis and guiding targeted EUS-FNA/B. However, AI models have limitations and shortages that need to be addressed before clinical use. Furthermore, as most AI studies are retrospective, large-scale prospective clinical trials are necessary to evaluate their clinical usefulness accurately. Although AI in EUS-FNA/B is still in its infancy, the constant input of clinical data and the advancements in computer technology are expected to make computer-aided diagnosis and treatment more feasible.

Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions

BACKGROUND

The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays.

METHODS

Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding.

RESULTS

A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09-4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49-4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2-4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm.

CONCLUSIONS

The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) versus macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: a paired comparative analysis using newer-generation fine needle biopsy needles

Background

Rapid on-site examination (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been a subject of debate. We compared the yield of EUS-FNB with adequacy assessed using macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE), and smear cytology with adequacy confirmed by ROSE, acquired using the same needle.

Methods

Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) who underwent EUS-FNB of pancreatic solid lesions between January 2021 and July 2022 were included. Demographic details, site and size of lesion, number of passes, and the diagnosis by cytology and histopathology of core tissue were noted. The first pass was used for ROSE adequacy assessment and was subsequently sent for cytological assessment. Additional passes were taken subsequently to acquire core tissue. Adequacy was confirmed by MOSE (whitish core of more than 4 mm). Final cytology and histopathology (HPE) were compared for diagnostic accuracy.

Results

One hundred fifty-five patients were included in the analysis during the study period (mean age 55.1+12.9 years; 60% male; 77% in pancreatic head; median size 3.7 cm). The final diagnosis was malignancy in 129, while 26 were negative for malignancy. Sensitivity and specificity for ROSE with cytology in detecting malignant SPLs were 96.9% and 100%, respectively. HPE with MOSE had sensitivity and specificity of 96.1% and 100%, respectively. A comparison of diagnostic accuracy showed no significant difference (P>0.99) between HPE with MOSE and ROSE with cytology, using an FNB needle.

Conclusion

MOSE is as good as ROSE in terms of diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions sampled using newer-generation EUS biopsy needles.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 19-Gauge Fine-Needle Biopsy Needle for Abdominal Lesions

Attempts at performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with a 19G needle are increasing because histological diagnosis and comprehensive genomic profiling are a necessity. However, the diagnostic ability of the 19G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle, especially the third-generation FNB needle, is unclear and has been retrospectively reviewed. The 19G TopGain needle was used in 147 patients and 160 lesions between September 2020 and December 2021. The technical success rate of the biopsies was 99.4% (159/160). The early adverse event rate was 4.1% (6/147), and moderate or severe adverse event rate occurrence was 2.0% (3/147). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the 19G TopGain needle for 157 lesions with a confirmed diagnosis were 96.7%, 100%, and 96.8%, respectively. Rescue EUS-TA using the 19G TopGain needle was performed for nine lesions, and a successful diagnosis was made in six of these lesions (66.7%). The diagnostic ability of EUS-TA using the third-generation 19G TopGain needle was favorable. However, the use of 19G FNB needles may increase adverse events. Therefore, EUS-TA with a 19G FNB needle is mainly indicated in lesions where comprehensive genomic profiling may be necessary or the diagnosis could not be determined via EUS-TA using the 22G needle.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Lesions is the Way Forward: Here is the Evidence!

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS TA) has increasingly become imperative for pancreatic pathology in arriving at the correct diagnosis because of its simplicity, cost-effectiveness, and availability at high-volume centers. The advent of EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) has revolutionized EUS TA by providing samples that are larger and more diagnostic compared with fine-needle aspiration (FNA). Rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) has been conventionally used for improving the cytological yield as well as diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNA. The development of FNB has obviated the need for ROSE, and evidence from retrospective and comparative studies has suggested that FNB is as good as FNA with ROSE in terms of diagnostic accuracy and reduced costs. However, strong evidence in the form of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was missing. In this news and views, we discuss a multicenter RCT that has compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS FNB alone to EUS FNA with ROSE in patients with solid pancreatic lesions. This study has reemphasized that EUS FNB has a diagnostic accuracy comparable to EUS + ROSE at a comparable cost and requires fewer passes and has a shorter procedure time.

MicroRNAs as Indicators of Malignancy in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and Cystic Pancreatic Lesions

The dysregulation of microRNAs has recently been associated with cancer development and progression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and cystic pancreatic lesions. In solid pancreatic tumor tissue, the dysregulation of miR-146, miR-196a/b, miR-198, miR-217, miR-409, and miR-490, as well as miR-1290 has been investigated in tumor biopsies of patients with PDAC and was reported to predict cancer presence. However, the value of the predictive biomarkers may further be increased during clinical conditions suggesting cancer development such as hyperinsulinemia or onset of diabetes. In this specific context, the dysregulation of miR-486 and miR-196 in tumors has been observed in the tumor tissue of PDAC patients with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus. Moreover, miR-1256 is dysregulated in pancreatic cancer, possibly due to the interaction with long non-coding RNA molecules that seem to affect cell-cycle control and diabetes manifestation in PDAC patients, and, thus, these three markers may be of special or “sentinel value”. In blood samples, Next-generation sequencing (NGS) has also identified a set of microRNAs (miR-20a, miR-31-5p, miR-24, miR-25, miR-99a, miR-185, and miR-191) that seem to differentiate patients with pancreatic cancer remarkably from healthy controls, but limited data exist in this context regarding the prediction of cancer presences and outcomes. In contrast to solid pancreatic tumors, in cystic pancreatic cancer lesions, as well as premalignant lesions (such as intraductal papillary neoplasia (IPMN) or mucinous-cystic adenomatous cysts (MCAC)), the dysregulation of a completely different expression panel of miR-31-5p, miR-483-5p, miR-99a-5p, and miR-375 has been found to be of high clinical value in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. Interestingly, signal transduction pathways associated with miR-dysregulation seem to be entirely different in patients with pancreatic cysts when compared to PDAC. Overall, the determination of these different dysregulation “panels” in solid tumors, pancreatic cysts, obtained via fine-needle aspirate biopsies and/or in blood samples at the onset or during the treatment of pancreatic diseases, seems to be a reasonable candidate approach for predicting cancer presence, cancer development, and even therapy responses.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic mass without ROSE: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is an established diagnostic procedure for solid pancreatic mass. However, the diagnostic yield between fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic yields between FNA and FNB using conventional FNA and Franseen needles of the same size 22-gauge needle, in patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-TA without rapid onsite cytopathology evaluation (ROSE).

METHODS

All cases of EUS-TA by FNA or FNB for solid pancreatic mass between January 2017 and October 2020 in a single-centre university hospital were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures were performed without an onsite cytologist. Before the endoscopist finished the procedure, macroscopic onsite evaluation (MOSE) was confirmed. The diagnostic yield and the average number of needle passes between FNB and FNA were then compared.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients (FNA, n = 77; FNB, n = 74) with solid pancreatic mass detected by cross-sectional imaging underwent EUS-TA. The mean age was 62.3 ± 12.8 years, with 88 (58.3%) males. Age, sex, mass location, tumour size and disease stage from imaging were not significantly different between the two groups. The diagnostic performance was higher in EUS-FNB (94.6%) than in EUS-FNA (89.6%). The mean number of needle passes was clearly fewer in FNB than in FNA (2.8 vs. 3.8, p < 0.001). The total procedure time was shorter in FNB (34.7 min) than in FNA (41 min). The adverse event rate between FNB and FNA was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of solid pancreatic mass was higher in FNB using the Franseen needle than in FNA using the conventional FNA needle in a centre where ROSE is unavailable, without serious adverse event. In addition, FNB had fewer needle passes and shorter total procedure time.

The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic-ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) has been widely performed for the definitive diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). As the puncture needles, puncture techniques, and sample processing methods have improved, EUS-TA has shown higher diagnostic yields and safety. Recently, several therapeutic target genomic biomarkers have been clarified in pancreatic ductal carcinoma (PDAC). Although only a small proportion of patients with PDAC can benefit from precision medicine based on gene mutations at present, precision medicine will also be further developed for SPLs as more therapeutic target genomic biomarkers are identified. Advances in next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques enable the examination of multiple genetic mutations in limited tissue samples. EUS-TA is also useful for NGS and will play a more important role in determining treatment strategies. In this review, we describe the utility of EUS-TA for SPLs.

Multicenter prospective study of the efficacy of stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in patients with pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVE

In sample isolation processing by stereomicroscopy (SIPS), a technique used to assess the quality of specimens collected during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the cutoff value of stereomicroscopically visible white core (SVWC) (≥11 mm) indicates high diagnostic sensitivity. However, the procedure of SIPS is complicated and time-consuming. Therefore, we devised the stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation (SOSE), a new rapid assessment method that is simpler than SIPS and only determines if the SVWC cutoff value is attained. We aimed to examine the usefulness of SOSE in a multicenter, prospective setting.

METHODS

Seventy patients from multiple institutions with solid pancreatic masses suspected to be pancreatic cancer were included. EUS-TA was performed using a 22-gauge Franseen needle. SVWCs were measured on-site using stereomicroscopy. The primary outcome was the sensitivity of SVWC cutoff value in EUS-TA with SOSE.

RESULTS

The total number of punctures was 214 and SOSE was performed on 150 punctures. The SVWC cutoff value collection rate was 100% per lesion, with 80% in the first pass, 79% in the second pass, and 78% per puncture in all passes. The median time taken to determine the SVWC cutoff value for SOSE was 47 s. The sensitivity of the SVWC cutoff value was 93.2% for histology and 96.6% for cytology + histology. The per-lesion accuracy of pathological diagnosis reached the highest level (98.6%) at the second puncture.

CONCLUSIONS

SOSE showed high diagnostic sensitivity and may be a new rapid assessment method for the diagnosis of malignant pancreatic cancer using EUS-TA.

Needle-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (nCLE) for Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Given the variable diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), novel imaging techniques including needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) have been devised. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance and safety of nCLE for the diagnosis of PCLs.

METHODS

Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines and meta-analysis analyzed according to the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy working group methodology. Measured outcomes included diagnostic characteristics and procedure-associated adverse events. A bivariate model was used to compute combined weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristic curve with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Seven studies (n=324; mean age: 63.99±5.36 y; 52.47% female) were included. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR of nCLE was 85% (95% CI, 71-93; I2=74.20%), 99% (95% CI, 90-100; I2=72.60%), 78.66 (95% CI, 7.99-774.68; I2=26.86%), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.31; I2=75.84%), respectively. Diagnostic accuracy as measured by summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 99% (95% CI, 98-100). The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 534 (95% CI, 50-5664; I2=58.00%). Postprocedure pancreatitis developed in 1% (95% CI, 0-3; I2=5.64%) of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this meta-analysis, nCLE appears to be an effective and safe technique for the diagnostic evaluation of PCLs. Although moderate-to-high amounts of heterogeneity were present, our results demonstrated that nCLE has a diagnostic accuracy of 99% with a low rate of adverse events.

Pancreatic cyst fluid glucose in differentiating mucinous from nonmucinous pancreatic cysts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recently, low levels of intracystic glucose acquired with EUS-guided pancreatic cyst fluid sampling have been shown to help to differentiate mucinous from nonmucinous cystic neoplasms. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of pancreatic cyst fluid glucose compared with carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) for pancreatic cystic lesions.

METHODS

Individualized searches were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and meta-analysis analyzed according to Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy working group methodology. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and summary receiver operating characteristics curve for intracystic glucose or CEA alone or combination testing.

RESULTS

Eight studies (609 lesions; mean patient age, 63.56 ± 2.75 years; 60.36% women) were included. The pooled sensitivity for pancreatic cyst fluid glucose was significantly higher compared with CEA alone (91% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 88-94; I² = .00] vs 56% [95% CI, 46-66; I² = 537.14]; P < .001) with no difference in specificity (86% [95% CI, 81-90; I² = 24.16] vs 96% [95% CI, 90-99; I² = 38.06]; P > .05). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher for pancreatic cyst fluid glucose versus CEA alone (94% [95% CI, 91-96] vs 85% [95% CI, 82-88]; P < .001). Combination testing with pancreatic cyst fluid glucose and CEA did not improve the diagnostic accuracy compared with glucose alone (97% [95% CI, 95-98] vs 94% [95% CI, 91-96]; P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Low pancreatic cyst fluid glucose was associated with a high sensitivity and specificity with significantly improved diagnostic accuracy compared with CEA alone for the diagnosis of mucinous versus nonmucinous pancreatic cystic lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE.

METHODS

A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Effectiveness of EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration: A Retrospective Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for pancreatic tumors and subepithelial lesions (SEL) of the gastrointestinal tract are effective for histological diagnosis. There are also reports that tissue sampling is possible with a smaller number of punctures by EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). In this study, we retrospectively compared the diagnostic abilities of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB. We examined 130 patients who underwent EUS-FNA/EUS-FNB for pancreatic tumors and SEL from July 2018 to January 2021. None of the cases underwent rapid on-site evaluation. There were 94 and 36 cases in the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups, respectively. The median tumor size in the EUS-FNB group was 30 mm, which was significantly larger than the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.02). In addition, transgastric puncture was significantly more common in the EUS-FNB group (p = 0.01). The EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB groups had a sensitivity of 82.9% and 91.7% and an accuracy rate of 85.1% and 91.7%, respectively. However, both procedures had a comparable diagnostic ability.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.