Basics in Endoscopic Ultrasound Part 1: Diagnostic Indications and Tissue Sampling

Diagnostic value of conventional endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node metastasis in upper gastrointestinal neoplasia: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal neoplasia mainly includes esophageal cancer and gastric cancer, both of which have high morbidity and mortality. Lymph node metastasis (LNM), as the most common metastasis mode of both diseases, is an important factor affecting tumor stage, treatment strategy and clinical prognosis. As a new fusion technology, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is becoming increasingly used in the diagnosis and treatment of digestive system diseases, but its use in detecting LNM in clinical practice remains limited.

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic value of conventional EUS for LNM in upper gastrointestinal neoplasia.

METHODS

Using the search mode of "MeSH + Entry Terms" and according to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we conducted a comprehensive search and screening of the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 2000 to October 1, 2022. Study data were extracted according to the predetermined data extraction form. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool, and the results of the quality assessment were presented using Review Manager 5.3.5 software. Finally, Stata14.0 software was used for a series of statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies were included in our study, including 2986 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic score and diagnostic odds ratio of conventional EUS in the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal neoplasia LNM were 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50-0.73], 0.80 (95%CI: 0.73-0.86), 3.15 (95%CI: 2.46-4.03), 0.47 (95%CI: 0.36-0.61), 1.90 (95%CI: 1.51-2.29) and 6.67 (95%CI: 4.52-9.84), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95%CI: 0.76-0.83). Sensitivity analysis indicated that the results of the meta-analysis were stable. There was considerable heterogeneity among the included studies, and the threshold effect was an important source of heterogeneity. Univariable meta-regression and subgroup analysis showed that tumor type, sample size and EUS diagnostic criteria were significant sources of heterogeneity in specificity (P < 0.05). No significant publication bias was found.

CONCLUSION

Conventional EUS has certain clinical value and can assist in the detection of LNM in upper gastrointestinal neoplasia, but it cannot be used as a confirmatory or exclusionary test.

CO 2 vs. air insufflation in endoscopic ultrasonography: a prospective study

Background and study aims  Carbon dioxide (CO ₂ ) is being increasingly used for insufflation during endoscopy for safety and better tolerance. The role of CO ₂ during endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has not been studied yet. Our main aim was to compare the effects of CO ₂ vs. air insufflation on abdominal discomfort in patients undergoing EUS. Our secondary outcomes were to ascertain the effects of CO ₂ insufflation on image quality/visual artifacts and on the amount of sedation. Patients and methods  This was a prospective, controlled, single-blind, observational study. Abdominal discomfort was assessed before diagnostic EUS, and 1 and 3 hours post-procedure and recorded as a visual analogue scale. Image quality was also recorded as a 4-point scale from optimal to poor at four different scanning sites (esophagus, stomach, duodenal bulb and second portion). Results  A total of 198 patients were enrolled. We observed that CO ₂ resulted in less abdominal discomfort than air insufflation that was statistically significant at 3 hours ( P  = 0.048) but not at 1 hour after EUS ( P  = 0.112), probably due to the ongoing effects of sedation at the latter stage. On the other hand, no differences were found in the dose of sedation administered in the two groups. Image quality was significantly better in the CO ₂ group compared to the air group at all four different scanning sites ( P  < 0.01). Similarly, CO ₂ correlated with less visual artifacts and need of suction ( P  < 0.01). Conclusions  Similarly to previous findings with other endoscopic procedures, EUS was associated with improved scores for abdominal discomfort with CO ₂ rather than air insufflation. Moreover, overall EUS image quality was improved using CO ₂ insufflation. Future studies are warranted to ascertain whether CO ₂ insufflation should be regarded as the standard of care for diagnostic EUS.