A Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating Bleeding Risk after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Patients Prescribed Antithrombotic Agents

Safety and Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Hypervascular Pancreatic Lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is a common technique for diagnosing pancreatic lesions with high accuracy and a low incidence of procedural adverse events. However, occasional adverse events, particularly bleeding, may occur. Procedures for hypervascular lesions are considered important, but their risks are unknown. We aimed to evaluate the safety and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for hypervascular pancreatic solid lesions. This study included 301 patients with 308 solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-FNB between May 2011 and December 2018. We performed propensity-score matching to balance clinical differences between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions and analyzed 52 lesions. We compared the safety and diagnostic performance of propensity score-matched cohorts. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rates of EUS-FNB for hypervascular lesions were 94.7%, 100%, and 96.2%, and those for hypovascular lesions were 80.0%, 100%, and 84.6%, respectively. There was no difference in diagnostic performance between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions. Furthermore, adverse events occurred in only one patient (pancreatitis) in the hypovascular group. There were no significant differences in the occurrence of adverse events between hypervascular and hypovascular lesions (0% vs. 3.8%, p = 1.000). Therefore, EUS-FNB may be safe with a high diagnostic yield, even for hypervascular solid pancreatic lesions.

Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatology: Focus on Normal Variants and Pancreatic Masses

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a main tool in gastroenterology for both diagnosis and exclusion of pancreatic pathology. It allows minimally invasive assessment of various diseases or anatomic variations affecting the pancreas also with the help of new Doppler technologies, elastography, contrast-enhanced imaging including post hoc image processing with quantification analyses, three-dimensional reconstruction, and artificial intelligence. EUS also allows interventional direct access to the pancreatic parenchyma and the retroperitoneal space, to the pancreatic duct, pancreatic masses, cysts, and vascular structures.

Summary

This review aimed to summarize new developments of EUS in the field of pancreatology. We highlight the role of EUS in evaluating pancreatic pathology by describing normal anatomic variants like pancreas divisum, pancreatic lipomatosis, pancreatic fibrosis in the elderly and characterizing pancreatic masses, both in the context of chronic pancreatitis and within healthy pancreatic parenchyma. EUS is considered the optimal imaging modality for pancreatic masses of uncertain dignity and allows both cytological diagnosis and histology, which is essential not only for neoplastic conditions but also for tailoring therapy for benign inflammatory conditions.

Key Messages

EUS plays an indispensable role in pancreatology and the development of new diagnostic and interventional approaches to the retroperitoneal space and the pancreas exponentially increased over the last years. The development of computer-aided diagnosis and artificial intelligence algorithms hold the potential to overcome the obstacles associated with interobserver variability and will most likely support decision-making in the management of pancreatic disease.

Risk of Bleeding with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Patients on Antithrombotic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The present guidelines stratify endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) as a high-bleeding risk procedure in patients on antithrombotics. However, the data regarding the same are conflicting. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to analyze the bleeding event rates associated with EUS-TA in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

A literature search from January 2000 to August 2022 was done for studies on EUS-guided TA in patients receiving antithrombotics. The primary outcome was incidence of overall and major bleeding. Pooled event rates across studies were expressed with summative statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding in patients on antithrombotics was 2.0% (0.6-3.4) and 0.8% (0.0-1.6), respectively. In patients taking thienopyridine or anticoagulants, the pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding was 2.4% (0.9-3.9) and 1.7% (0.4-3.1), respectively. Patients on antithrombotics had a higher odd of overall bleeding (OR 2.12, 1.20-3.83) and major bleeding (OR 3.58, 1.11-11.52) compared to controls. The odds of overall bleeding (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.38-2.42) and major bleeding (OR 1.57, 95%CI 0.45-5.54) were comparable between patients on antithrombotics who continued and those who discontinued it preprocedural.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increase risk of bleeding with EUS-TA in patients on antithrombotics, the pooled incidence remains low. Compared to the previous guidelines stating thienopyridine use as high risk for bleeding, the present analysis showed a bleeding rate of less than 1%. Discontinuing antithrombotics prior to EUS-TA does not reduce the bleeding risk significantly, requiring strict monitoring.

Peri-procedure management of antithrombotic agents and thrombocytopenia for common procedures in oncology: Guidance from the SSC of the ISTH

Patients with cancer have an increased risk of thrombosis requiring anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet agents, and they can also encounter thrombocytopenia due to cancer itself or cancer therapies. They often undergo many procedures such as tissue or bone marrow biopsies, placement of central access lines, diagnostic or therapeutic draining procedures, lumbar puncture, and more. Management of antithrombotic agents or thrombocytopenia around the time of these procedures is highly variable. In this document, the Hemostasis and Malignancy Subcommittee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis aims to provide useful practice guidance in the management of antithrombotic agents and thrombocytopenia around the time of common procedures in patients with cancer.

Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

The efficacy of new generation endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles has been promising in recent years. Yet, comparing these needles’ diagnostic yield and safety to conventional needles is not well-known. Our study aims to compare the adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with different types of needles, including FNA needles, FNB needles with a Franseen tip and FNB needles with a reverse bevel. Furthermore, we will analyze the risk factors, including tumor vascularity, different needle types, and the underlying disease, which may impact the safety of the procedures. From May 2014 to December 2021, 192 consecutive EUS-TAs were performed on pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions in our hospital using different types of FNA and FNB needles. We retrospectively reviewed the data and identified the risk factors for EUS-TA-related complications. As a result, the hypervascular tumor is a significant risk factor for adverse events in our multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 4.96 (95% CI 1.33–18.47), while liver cirrhosis is one of the risk factors for adverse events during EUS-TA, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI 1.1–25.6). However, the risk of adverse events did not increase using Franseen-tip needles, compared to conventional FNA or FNB needles with a reverse bevel. In conclusion, we must be more cautious in patients with liver cirrhosis and hypervascular tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, when performing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage in Patients Undergoing Antithrombotic Therapy

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has published guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. These guidelines classify endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a high-risk procedure. Nevertheless, the bleeding risk of EUS-BD in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy is uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the bleeding risk in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 220 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD between January 2013 and December 2018. We managed the withdrawal and continuation of antithrombotic agents according to the JGES guidelines. We compared the bleeding event rates among patients who received and those who did not receive antithrombotic agents.

RESULTS

A total of 18 patients (8.1%) received antithrombotic agents and 202 patients (91.8%) did not. Three patients experienced bleeding events, with an overall bleeding event rate of 1.3% (3/220): one patient was in the antithrombotic group (5.5%) and two patients were in the non-antithrombotic group (0.9%) (p=0.10). All cases were moderate. The sole thromboembolic event (0.4%) was a cerebral infarction in a patient in the non-antithrombotic group.

CONCLUSION

The rate of EUS-BD-related bleeding events was low. Even in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the bleeding event rates were not significantly different from those in patients not receiving antithrombotic therapy.

The bleeding risk after endoscopic ultrasound-guided puncture of pancreatic masses

BACKGROUND

Although EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is considered to be safe, there are limited studies on adverse events of fine-needle biopsy (FNB).

AIM

To compare the bleeding rate of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses.

METHODS

Our retrospective study included EUS-FNA/FNB of solid and cystic pancreatic masses performed between 02/2017-03/2019 in Klinikum Klagenfurt and 11/2018-03/2019 in University Hospital St. Pölten, Austria. Minor bleeding was defined as an event with a duration of more than 1 min, no need for intervention, large coagulum on the puncture site, or decrease in hemoglobin ≥1.5 g/dL (but <2 g/dL). Major bleeding was defined as a reduction in hemoglobin level ≥2 g/dL, need for red cell transfusions, or interventional hemostasis.

RESULTS

About 202 patients were biopsied in that period (141 solid, 61cystic pancreatic masses). FNA needle was used in 54.6% of cases with solid pancreatic masses and 73.7% of cysts. Bleeding with hemodynamic instability was not observed in our cohort. In pancreatic cysts, minor bleeding was observed in 8.2% of cases and was associated with the use of FNB needles and lower platelet count. In solid tumors, one major bleeding (0.7%) from a duodenal vessel occurred and was immediately treated with hemoclip. In this group, minor bleeding was observed in 15.6% of cases. Overall, the bleeding rate correlates with the use of FNB needles.

CONCLUSION

Use of EUS-FNB needles increases the rate of minor bleeding for both solid and cystic pancreatic tumors, while major bleeding is a rare occurrence, irrespective of the needle type.

Feasibility and Safety of Transjugular Liver Biopsy for Japanese Patients with Chronic Liver Diseases

Background and study aim: Transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) can be used in patients who are ineligible for percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) with acute and chronic hepatic disease. This study aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of TJLB in patients who were not indicated for PLB. Methods: Between July 2014 and February 2019, a total of 134 patients underwent liver biopsies at our institution. Among these, PLB was performed in 110 patients and TJLB in 24 patients. A retrospective comparison of clinical results in these patients was then performed. The primary endpoints of this study were the utility and safety of TJLB in patients who were not indicated for PLB. Results: The procedural success rate was 100% in both groups. The clinical response rate and the effective tissue sampling rate were 100% in the TJLB group and 97% in the PLB group (p = 0.55). There was no difference in the number of portal fields examined retrospectively between the two groups. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. Conclusions: It is suggested that TJLB is useful because it can be safely performed in patients with poor general condition who are not indicated for PLB.

Anticoagulation and antiplatelet management in gastrointestinal endoscopy: A review of current evidence

The role of endoscopic procedures, in both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes is continually expanding and evolving rapidly. In this context, endoscopists will encounter patients prescribed on anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications frequently. This poses an increased risk of intraprocedural and delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. Thus, there is now greater importance on optimal pre, peri and post-operative management of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy to minimise the risk of post-procedural bleeding, without increasing the risk of a thromboembolic event as a consequence of therapy interruption. Currently, there are position statements and guidelines from the major gastroenterology societies. These are available to assist endoscopists with an evidenced-based systematic approach to anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet management in endoscopic procedures, to ensure optimal patient safety. However, since the publication of these guidelines, there is emerging evidence not previously considered in the recommendations that may warrant changes to our current clinical practices. Most notably and divergent from current position statements, is a growing concern regarding the use of heparin bridging therapy during warfarin cessation and its associated risk of increased bleeding, suggestive that this practice should be avoided. In addition, there is emerging evidence that anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet therapy may be safe to be continued in cold snare polypectomy for small polyps (< 10 mm).

Quality in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: what's new in 2020?

Quality assessment and improvement of an endoscopic service has emerged as a basic component of everyday gastrointestinal endoscopy. In order to ensure a high level of quality, a series of actions must be adopted when performing an endoscopic examination. Nonetheless, quality still remains a qualitative parameter; thus, implementation of specific indicators of quality is warranted. Irrespective of the nature of the endoscopic procedure, quality indicators usually refer to either structural properties of an endoscopy unit (e.g., examination availability), procedural factors (e.g., diagnostic accuracy), or patient outcomes (e.g., occurrence of an adverse event related to performance of an endoscopic procedure). Moreover, they are usually classified into 3 distinct sections, according to the phase of the procedure they relate to: i.e., before, during, and after the examination. The aim of this review is to present measures that need to be adopted in order to reach an optimal quality level during an endoscopic ultrasound examination and to provide up-to-date data regarding the respective quality indicators implicated.

Feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis patients receiving antithrombotic therapy

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) as a treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis has been shown to obtain high technical and clinical success rates and a low recurrence rate. However, the safety of EUS-GBD for patients receiving antithrombotic therapy (ATT) has not been proven. The aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-GBD in patients receiving ATT.

Methods

Twelve patients with acute cholecystitis associated with gallstones who were receiving antithrombotic therapy and underwent EUS-GBD were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients with grade II or III cholecystitis who had failed endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ETGBD) or developed recurrence after multiple ETGBD procedures underwent urgent drainage by EUS-GBD. The primary outcome was the rate of bleeding complications after the procedure and the secondary outcomes were the technical and clinical success rates, complications, and recurrence.

Results

Eleven (91.6%) patients underwent EUS-GBD with continuation of ATT (at least 1 agent). Five of 12 patients (41.7%) were receiving more than 1 agent for ATT. The rate of bleeding complications was 0% and the technical success rate was 100%, even though some patients had high-grade (severe) cholecystitis and/or several underlying diseases. Early complications were found in 2 (16.7%) patients. The clinical success rate was 91.7% (11/12). There were no recurrences of cholecystitis during the follow-up period (mean 261 [range 5-650] days).

Conclusions

EUS-GBD yielded high technical and clinical success rates and a low recurrence rate. No patients receiving ATT developed bleeding complications. EUS-GBD might be a good option for patients on ATT.

Macroscopic on-site evaluation of biopsy specimens for accurate pathological diagnosis during EUS-guided fine needle biopsy using 22-G Franseen needle

Background and Objectives:

Measuring a visible core length during macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) can be useful for accurate diagnoses during an EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). We aimed to estimate visible core cutoff lengths predictive of a correct diagnosis when using 22-gauge Franseen needles for biopsies from pancreatic masses.

Materials and Methods:

We assessed 77 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles for pancreatic masses between March 2018 and October 2018. At least two needle passes were performed in all patients, irrespective of the findings on MOSE. The endoscopists measured the visible cores using a ruler during MOSE. The first two passes were analyzed on a per pass basis, and the correlation between visible core lengths and diagnostic accuracy was evaluated.

Results:

We evaluated 150 needle passes of 75 patients. The accuracy per pass was 92% (138/150). The median length of the visible cores was 15 (range: 0–60) mm and they were significantly longer in the correct diagnosis group than in the incorrect diagnosis group. The accuracy correlated positively with the visible core length. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis of the visible core length for accuracy demonstrated an optimal cutoff value of 10 mm. On multivariate logistic regression, visible core lengths >10 mm independently affected the correct diagnosis (odds ratio: 5.1, P = 0.02).

Conclusions:

Visible cores exceeding 10 mm may be useful for correct diagnosis while using a 22-gauge Franseen needle for EUS-FNB from pancreatic masses.

What should be known prior to performing EUS?

Direct referral of patients for EUS – instead of preprocedural consultation with the endosonographer – has become standard practice (like for other endoscopic procedures) as it is time- and cost-effective. To ensure appropriate indications and safe examinations, the endosonographer should carefully consider what information is needed before accepting the referral. This includes important clinical data regarding relevant comorbidities, the fitness of the patient to consent and undergo the procedure, and the anticoagulation status. In addition, relevant findings from other imaging methods to clarify the clinical question may be necessary. Appropriate knowledge and management of the patients’ anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy, antibiotic prophylaxis, and sedation issues can avoid unnecessary delays and unsafe procedures. Insisting on optimal preparation, appropriate indications, and clear clinical referral questions will increase the quality of the outcomes of EUS. In this paper, important practical issues regarding EUS preparations are raised and discussed from different points of view.