Endohepatology: The endoscopic armamentarium in the hand of the hepatologist

ABSTRACT

Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Protocol for a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) with vs without bupivacaine

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer is a devastating disease with less than 5% 5-year survival. Inoperable patients often present with pain. Randomized controlled trial have shown that endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) improves pain control. It is usually performed by injecting bupivacaine followed by absolute alcohol around the celiac axis.

STUDY DESIGN

Single center, randomized, double blind controlled trial of EUS-CPN with and without bupivacaine in patients with inoperable malignancy (pancreatic or other) involving the celiac plexus. The study was approved by research ethics board with approval number of 2022-9969, 21.151 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04951804).

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that bupivacaine is superfluous and may actually reduce pain control by diluting the neurolytic effect of alcohol. Bupivacaine is also potentially dangerous in that it may produce serious adverse events such as arrythmias and cardiac arrest if inadvertently injected intravascularly.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial is designed to assess whether bupivacaine is of any value during EUS-CPN.

Safety and clinical efficacy of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage

Background and Objectives

EUS is a potential alternative for the drainage of abscesses. The aim of this study was to determine if EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and a valid option for abscess resolution.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective review from 2002 to 2020 at a single quaternary institution. EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage via the transrectal route was performed in all patients with or without drain/stent placement. Technical and clinical success of EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage was analyzed. Descriptive analyses and Fisher exact test were performed.

Results

Sixty consecutive patients were included in the study (53.5% male; mean age, 53.8 ± 17.9 years). Pelvic abscesses occurred mainly postoperatively (33 cases; 60.0%) and from complicated diverticulitis (14 cases; 23.3%). Mean diameter was 6.5 ± 2.4 cm (80% unilocular). Drainage was performed with EUS-guided stent placement (double-pigtail plastic or lumen-apposing metal) in 74.5% of cases and with aspiration alone for the remainder. Technical success occurred in 58 cases (97%). Of those with long-term follow-up after EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (n = 55; 91.7%), complete abscess resolution occurred in 72.7% of all cases. Recurrence occurred in 8 cases (14.5%) and persisted in 7 patients (12.5%), 7 of which were successfully retreated with EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage. Accounting for these successful reinterventions, the overall rate of abscess resolution was 85.5%. Abscess resolution rate improved with drain placement (83%). Accounting for 7 repeat EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainages, overall abscess resolution improved. Two deaths occurred (3.4%) because of sepsis from failed source control in patients who had previously failed medical, radiological, and surgical treatment.

Conclusions

EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage is technically feasible, safe, and an effective alternative to radiological or open surgical drainage. It also offers favorable clinical outcomes in different clinical situations.

EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pancreas cancer - Finally established or still under review?

Patients with pancreas cancer must deal frequently with intractable and refractory pain. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) has been the most studied and used therapeutic technique aimed to destroy the pain fibres that allow the pancreas to communicate with the central nervous system. A neurolytic agent, most commonly ethanol, is optimally spread around the celiac axis in order to reduce pain and mitigate narcotic requirements. This can be performed early to prevent the spiral of pain and medication use, or more historically as salvage therapy. Different techniques to best administer the ethanol for effective EUS-CPN are still being debated. New EUS-guided injection techniques with radiofrequency, radioactive, and/or chemotherapeutic agents need more study.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?

This is the fifth in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in EUS." In the current paper, we deal with high-resolution catheter probes, otherwise known as EUS miniprobes (EUS-MPs). The application of miniprobes for early carcinomas in the entire intestinal tract, for subepithelial lesions, and for findings in the bile duct and pancreatic duct as well as endobronchial use is critically discussed. Submucous lesions, especially in the colon, but also early carcinomas in special cases are considered the most important indications. The argument is illustrated by numerous examples.

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing the diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle to the standard 25G needle in suspicious pancreatic lesions

Background and Objectives

The aim of the study was to perform the first randomized trial comparing the diagnostic yield, bloodiness, and cellularity of the 25G standard needle (25S) and the 25G ProCore™ needle (25P).

Materials and Methods

All patients referred to the tertiary care referral center for EUS guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of suspicious solid pancreatic lesions were eligible. EUS-FNA was performed in each lesion with both 25S and 25P needles (the choice of the first needle was randomized), using a multipass sampling pattern, without stylet or suction. Rapid on-site evaluation was used when possible. Pap-stained slides were read by a single experienced cytopathologist, blinded to the needle type.

Results

One hundred and forty-three patients were recruited. Samples were positive for cancer in 122/143 (85.3%) with the 25S needle versus 126/143 (88.1%) with the 25P needle, negative in 17/143 (11.9%) with the 25S needle versus 13/143 (9.1%) with the 25P needle, and suspicious in 4/143 (2.8%) with each needle. There was no difference in any outcome based on the type of the first needle. No carryover effect was detected (P = 0.214; NS). Cumulative logistic regression analyses showed no associations between the type of needle and diagnostic yield for cancer, cellularity, or bloodiness. The difference in the yield for cancer was 2.9% (-4.2; 10.1%); with the confidence interval upper within the predetermined noninferiority margin of 15%.

Conclusion

The 25S needle is noninferior to the 25P needle for diagnosing cancer in suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Do we need contrast agents for EUS?

We recently introduced a series of articles that dealt with controversies in EUS. In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information is necessary prior to EUS and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking on EUS examinations. Part II focuses on technical details and controversies about the use of EUS in special situations. In this article, important practical issues regarding the application of contrast-enhanced EUS in various clinical settings are raised and controversially discussed from different points of view.

An international, multi-institution survey on performing EUS-FNA and fine needle biopsy

Background and Objectives

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) are effective techniques that are widely used for tissue acquisition. However, it remains unclear how to obtain high-quality specimens. Therefore, we conducted a survey of EUS-FNA and FNB techniques to determine practice patterns worldwide and to develop strong recommendations based on the experience of experts in the field.

Methods

This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). The survey was administered by E-mail through the SurveyMonkey website. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. Another questionnaire about the level of recommendation was designed to assess the respondents' answers.

Results

ISEUS-TF members developed a questionnaire containing 17 questions that was sent to 53 experts. Thirty-five experts completed the survey within the specified period. Among them, 40% and 54.3% performed 50-200 and more than 200 EUS sampling procedures annually, respectively. Some practice patterns regarding FNA/FNB were recommended.

Conclusion

This is the first worldwide survey of EUS-FNA and FNB practice patterns. The results showed wide variations in practice patterns. Randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for optimizing the FNA/FNB procedures.

Do we need elastography for EUS?

We recently introduced a series of papers “What should be known prior to performing EUS exams.” In Part I, the authors discussed which clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are needed before embarking EUS examinations. In Part II, technical controversies on how EUS is performed were discussed from different points of view. In this article, important practical issues regarding EUS elastography will be raised and controversially discussed from very different points of view.

How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?

Recently, we introduced a series of papers describing on how to perform certain techniques and controversies in EUS. In the first paper, "What should be known before performing EUS examinations, Part I," the authors discussed clinical information and whether other imaging modalities should be needed before embarking in EUS examination. In Part II, some technical controversies on how EUS is performed are discussed from different points of view by providing the relevant available evidence. Herewith, we describe on how to perform EUS-guided fine needle tattooing (FNT) in daily practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss pros and cons for several issues including historical remarks, injecting material, technical approach, and how to perform EUS-FNT including argues in favor and against.

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.

An assessment of the yield of EUS in patients referred for dilated common bile duct and normal liver function tests

Objective:

This study aims to determine the yield of EUS in patients with common bile duct (CBD) dilation and normal liver function tests (LFTs).

Materials and Methods:

Between October 2000 and December 2016, all patients referred for EUS for unexplained CBD dilatation (CBD ≥7 mm), with normal aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin and no history of sphincterotomy, were eligible. Linear-array EUS was performed by one of the two experienced endosonographers. Data were extracted from a prospectively maintained database.

Results:

Of 29,920 upper gastrointestinal EUS procedures performed, 840/29,920 (3%) were for unexplained CBD dilation. Of 840 patients, 199 (24%) had normal LFTs, 99% were Caucasian, 46% had biliary-type abdominal pain, and 41% were postcholecystectomy. EUS diagnosed choledocholithiasis (CDL) or sludge in 18/199 (9%) patients (7/18 had CBD sludge only). No other pathology was diagnosed. Of 18 CDL patients, 15 (83%) had an intact gallbladder, and all 15 patients had cholelithiasis. The frequency of CDL or sludge in postcholecystectomy patients was only 3.7% (3/82); none of these patients were younger than 69 years of age. Regression analyses showed no associations between EUS diagnosis of CDL or sludge and biliary-type abdominal pain, other symptoms, sex, or race. Each additional year of age was associated with an increase in the risk of CDL or sludge by a factor of 1.05 (odds ratio: 1.05; P = 0.034).

Summary:

In patients with CBD dilation and normal LFTs, the only significant pathology identified is CBD stones or sludge (almost exclusively in elderly patients with cholelithiasis).

Conclusion:

EUS should be avoided in patients with dilated bile ducts and normal LFTs, especially if under 65 years of age and postcholecystectomy.

What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II)

In “What should be known prior to performing EUS exams, Part I,” the authors discussed the need for clinical information and whether other imaging modalities are required before embarking EUS examinations. Herewith, we present part II which addresses some (technical) controversies how EUS is performed and discuss from different points of view providing the relevant evidence as available. (1) Does equipment design influence the complication rate? (2) Should we have a standardized screen orientation? (3) Radial EUS versus longitudinal (linear) EUS. (4) Should we search for incidental findings using EUS?

Onsite evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration: the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist and the cytopathologist

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become an essential tool in the management of multiple diseases. Its accuracy is related to different aspects of the technique, one of the most important being the experience and interaction of the endosonographer and pathologist. Certain studies over the past years have highlighted the importance of having rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of samples obtained at the time of EUS-FNA. We have reviewed the role of ROSE, performed by the same endosonographer, a cytotechnologist and an expert cytopathologist. The available data suggest that ROSE (either by the endosonographer, the cytotechnologist, or the cytopathologist) improves sample adequacy and diagnostic yield, with the best option to have ROSE performed by an expert cytopathologist. However, if non-ROSE accuracy is already very high, any improvement is harder to achieve.

A multi-institution consensus on how to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was shown to be useful for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, there is lack of consensus on how EUS-BD should be performed.

Methods:

This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS conducted in February 2018. The survey consisted of 10 questions related to the practice of EUS-BD.

Results:

Forty-six endoscopists of them completed the survey. The majority of endoscopists felt that EUS-BD could replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failure of ERCP. Among all EUS-BD methods, the rendezvous stenting technique should be the First choice. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were recommended by most endoscopists. For EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), superiority of partially-covered SEMS over fully-covered SEMS was not in agreement. 6-Fr cystotomes were recommended for fistula creation. During the HGS approach, longer SEMS (8 or 10 cm) was recommended. During the choledochoduodenostomy approach, 6-cm SEMS was recommended. During the intrahepatic (IH) approach, the IH segment 3 was recommended.

Conclusion:

This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-BD for MBO. There were wide variations in practice, and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for the management of this condition.

Practice guidelines for endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis

Objectives:

The objective of guideline was to provide clear and relevant consensus statements to form a practical guideline for clinicians on the indications, optimal technique, safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN).

Methods:

Six important clinical questions were determined regarding EUS-CPN. Following a detailed literature review, 6 statements were proposed attempting to answer those questions. A group of expert endosonographers convened in Chicago, United States (May 2016), where the statements were presented and feedback provided. Subsequently a consensus group of 35 expert endosonographers voted based on their individual level of agreement. A strong recommendation required 80% voter agreement. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria were used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Results:

Eighty percent agreement was reached on 5 of 6 consensus statements, 79.4% agreement was reached on the remaining one.

Conclusions:

EUS-CPN is efficacious, should be integrated into the management of pancreas cancer pain, and can be considered early at the time of diagnosis of inoperable disease. Techniques may still vary based on operator experience. Serious complications exist, but are rare.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided FNA of pelvic lesions: A large single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Pelvic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (PEUS-FNA) of rectal or perirectal lesions is safe, minimally invasive, and well tolerated. It provides valuable information, which can greatly influence patient management. Herein, the authors present what to their knowledge is the largest series to date of PEUS-FNA.

METHODS

PEUS-FNA specimens were retrieved from the archives of the study institution from January 2001 to March 2015. Only patients with solid pelvic lesions were examined. The cytopathology findings, immunohistochemistry, corresponding histology, and clinical data were collected. For analysis of accuracy, atypical or suspicious results were classified as "negative." The sensitivity and specificity of PEUS-FNA were calculated in a subset of patients with available surgical pathology.

RESULTS

A total of 127 cases meeting the current study criteria were obtained from patients who underwent PEUS-FNA at the study institution between January 2001 and March 2015. The mean age of the patients was 60 years, and 53% were female. Pelvic lesions were comprised of 72% masses and 28% lymph nodes, with a mean mass diameter of 27.38 mm (range, 5-100 mm). PEUS-FNA was positive for malignancy in 45% of cases, atypical/suspicious in 4.7% of cases, and negative for malignancy in 50.3% of cases. Surgical pathology was available for 44 patients. PEUS-FNA demonstrated 89.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 84.2%. No complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

PEUS-FNA is safe and effective for the investigation of pelvic lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:836-41. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology and biopsy in the evaluation of lymphoma

Accurate diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma have important prognostic implications and are generally required for treatment planning. Histological assessment, immunophenotyping, and genetic studies are usually necessary. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) is a minimally invasive technique widely used for the evaluation of deep-seated benign and malignant lesions. However, the value of cytological samples in lymphoma diagnosis is still a matter of debate. Endoscopic ultrasound guided-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNAB) can provide tissue core samples that may help overcome the limitations of cytology. The aim of this review is to summarize the available literature regarding EUS-FNAC and EUS-FNAB for the diagnosis and subtyping of lymphoma. In addition, we discuss its usefulness in the management of primary extra-nodal lymphomas, as well as technical issues that may influence sample quality.

Randomized controlled trial comparing stylet-free endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22-G and 25-G needles

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) results with different gauge needles have all been carried out with the stylet in place and show no clear advantage to the larger 22-G needle. Similar data for stylet-free EUS-FNA (SF-EUS-FNA) are unavailable. The aim of the present study was to determine whether diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy is superior with the 22-G needle as compared to the 25-G needle.

METHODS

All patients ≥ 18 years referred for solid-lesion EUS-FNA were eligible. Patients with suspected diagnosis of lymphoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, sarcoidosis, significant coagulopathy (international normalized ratio > 1.5 or platelets < 50000/mm(3)), use of clopidogrel within 7 days of EUS, and pregnancy were excluded. The two needles were compared regarding diagnostic yield, sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, visibility, number of passes, failures, and complications.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were included and 126 lesions were sampled. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the 22-G SF-EUS-FNA were 83%, 100%, 100% and 56%, respectively, and for the 25-G SF-EUS-FNA were 88.8%, 100%, 100% and 76.5%, respectively (P=NS). There were no significant differences between the 22-G and the 25-G FNA needles in sample adequacy, bloodiness, ease of puncture, FNA failure, visibility, number of passes and complications; and no significant differences between either needle were found in relation to lesion site.

CONCLUSION

For SF-EUS-FNA, the larger 22-G needle offers no advantage over the smaller 25-G needle.

Celiac plexus neurolysis in the management of unresectable pancreatic cancer: When and how?

Pancreatic cancer is the second most common abdominal cancer in North America with an estimated 20% resectability at diagnosis, and overall 5-year survival of 5%. Pain is common in pancreatic cancer patients with 70%-80% suffering substantial pain. Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is a technique that can potentially improve pain control in pancreatic cancer while preventing further escalation of opioid consumption. CPN is performed by injecting absolute alcohol into the celiac plexus neural network of ganglia. This review sets out to explore the current status of CPN in non-resectable pancreatic cancer. We will examine: (1) the efficacy and safety of percutaneous-CPN and endoscopic ultrasound guided-CPN; (2) specific technique modifications including bilateral (vs central) injections and celiac ganglia neurolysis; and (3) the issue of CPN timing, early at pancreatic cancer diagnosis vs traditional late use as salvage therapy.

Techniques for EUS-guided FNA cytology

This article addresses the technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions to obtain cytologic specimens. The technique can be broken down into a sequence of steps. The ultimate goal is to maximize the likelihood of obtaining adequate tissue for diagnostic purposes. This requires a technique that ensures that the needle can be moved inside the lesion, under ultrasound guidance, as widely as possible, as easily as possible, and safely. The other variables such as suction, needle type, and stylet use are of secondary importance.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology results with and without the stylet in 3364 cases

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNA) is traditionally carried out with the stylet, as it is believed to prevent blockage or contamination of the needle by tissue coming from the gastrointestinal wall. However, this recommendation has not been demonstrated on an empirical basis. The aim of the present study was to compare the yield of EUS-FNA in a very large series of patients with (S+) and without (S-) the stylet.

METHODS

Until 2004, the stylet was used for EUS-FNA in our center. After that, the stylet was never used. The results of all EUS-FNA in solid lesions carried out by one endosonographer with the same needle type were compared before and after stylet use was stopped.

RESULTS

3364 EUS-FNA procedures (in 3078 patients) in solid lesions were included (1483 S+ and 1881 S-). There was no significant difference between the S+ and S- results for any variable other than the number of passes required. The number of passes was significantly lower in the S- group when sampling lymph nodes, wall lesions and when carrying out biopsies through the gastric or rectal wall. However the statistical differences disappeared after controlling for malignancy, location and lesion size.

CONCLUSION

This very large comparative study showed no benefit in diagnostic yield when using the stylet for EUS-FNA.

Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of early endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis to prevent pain progression in patients with newly diagnosed, painful, inoperable pancreatic cancer

PURPOSE

Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is currently used as salvage therapy for morphine-resistant pancreatic cancer pain. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided CPN (EUS-CPN) can be performed early, at the time of EUS. We hypothesized that early EUS-CPN would reduce pain and morphine consumption, increase quality of life (QOL), and prolong survival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were eligible if referred for EUS for suspected pancreatic cancer with related pain. If EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration cytology confirmed inoperable adenocarcinoma, patients were randomly assigned to early EUS-CPN or conventional pain management. Pain scores (7-point Likert scale), morphine equivalent consumption, and QOL scores (Digestive Disease Questionnaire-15) were assessed at 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

Five hundred eighty eligible patients were seen between April 2006 and December 2008. Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned (48 patients per study arm). Pain relief was greater in the EUS-CPN group at 1 month and significantly greater at 3 months (difference in mean percent change in pain score = -28.9 [95% CI, -67.0 to 2.8], P = .09, and -60.7 [95% CI, -86.6 to -25.5], P = .01, respectively). Morphine consumption was similar in both groups at 1 month (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = -1.0 [95% CI, -47.7 to 49.2], P = .99), but tended toward lower consumption at 3 months in the neurolysis group (difference in mean change in morphine consumption = -49.5 [95% CI, -127.5 to 7.0], P = .10). There was no effect on QOL or survival.

CONCLUSION

Early EUS-CPN reduces pain and may moderate morphine consumption in patients with painful, inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. EUS-CPN can be considered in all such patients at the time of diagnostic and staging EUS.

Analysis of variables associated with surgery versus observation in patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred for endoscopic ultrasound

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for cyst fluid analysis (CFA) is often requested for pancreatic cystic lesions, to determine whether to operate or to observe. If this decision is not influenced by the EUS findings, the procedure may be unjustifiable. We aimed to determine whether EUS-CFA results predict surgery or observation in patients with pancreatic cysts referred for EUS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients referred to a quaternary pancreaticobiliary center for EUS evaluation of pancreatic cysts were eligible. Clinical data, computed tomography (CT) results, EUS findings, and CFA results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical analysis was performed to determine variables associated with surgery versus observation.

RESULTS

Over 33 months, data on 194 consecutive patients referred for EUS for evaluation of pancreatic cysts were analyzed. Of these, 136 (70 %) patients had EUS-FNA. After the initial workup (including EUS with/without CFA), 35 (18 %) underwent surgery. Predictors of surgery were: younger age (< 65 years) (P = 0.0027), malignant appearance at EUS (P = 0.02), and history of EUS-FNA (P = 0.012). Cyst fluid appearance, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19–9 (CA 19–9), and amylase levels were not significant determinants of surgery. In 14/50 (28 %) of cases where EUS-CFA clearly suggested benign serous lesions, surgery was still performed and in 9/11 (82 %) of cases with malignant EUS-CFA findings, surgery was not done.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pancreatic cysts referred for EUS, age and EUS appearance independently predict surgery. The “perceived need for EUS-CFA” also predicts surgery, but not the EUS-CFA results. The clinical value of EUS-CFA requires further study.

A prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration results obtained in the same lesion, with and without the needle stylet

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) with (S+) and without (S-) a stylet has never been compared. We prospectively compared the yield for malignancy and sample quality of S+ and S- EUS-FNA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

S+ or S- EUS-FNA was performed on consecutive solid lesions, with a 22-gauge needle, with systematic assignment of S+ or S- passes in a 1 : 2 ratio. Slides were read by a single, blinded cytologist and were rated for bloodiness, adequacy, and presence of malignancy. The yield for malignancy was compared only in lesions in which equal numbers of S+ and S- passes were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 309 passes (mean 2.3 passes/lesion, range 1-6, 82% adequate, 38% S+, 62% S-) were performed on 135 lesions (63% malignant, 42% nodes, 58% masses [79% pancreatic]) in 111 patients (mean age 62.9 years, range 30-86). In 46 lesions where an equal number (53 S+ and 53 S-) of passes was performed, there was no difference in the proportion of cases in which S+ FNA was "equal to or better than" S- FNA ([S+] 89% vs. [S-] 87%; P>0.05). The results of the two methods agreed in 80% cases (kappa 0.60). The sensitivities for malignancy were: S+ 87% vs. S- 83%, P>0.05. Specificities were 100%. Sample adequacy was significantly lower in S+ passes (75% vs. 87%, P=0.013), and sample bloodiness was significantly higher (75% vs. 52%, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the stylet with EUS-FNA does not increase the yield for malignancy and is associated with poorer sample quality. The value of the stylet for EUS-FNA is questionable and requires further investigation.

Central vs. bilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block or neurolysis: a comparative study of short-term effectiveness

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus block/neurolysis (CPB/N) can be performed by injecting at the base (central) or on either side (bilateral) of the celiac axis. Central CPB/N is easier and possibly safer. Bilateral CPB/N is more difficult but may be more effective as it reaches more ganglia. The aim of this study was to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of central and bilateral CPB/N.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for CPB/N to a quaternary EUS center were eligible for this study. Central CPB/N was used in the first half of the study period and bilateral CPB/N in the last half. The primary outcome was the percent reduction in visual analog pain scores at day 7.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients were eligible. Out of them, 24 (13%) were excluded for incomplete data. A total of 160 were left (71 central, 89 bilateral). The groups were similar for all cogent variables. Bilateral CPB/N was more effective than central CPB/N (mean percent pain reduction 70.4% (61.0-80.0) vs. 45.9% (32.7-57.4); P=0.0016). The only predictor of a >50% pain reduction was bilateral CPB/N (odds ratio 3.55, 1.72-7.34). Only one complication was noted: self-limited bleeding because of laceration of the adrenal artery following bilateral celiac plexus (CP) block in an anticoagulated patient.

CONCLUSIONS

(i) Bilateral CPB/N is more effective than central CPB/N; (ii) bilateral CPB/N is safe, but on rare occasions can cause trauma to the left adrenal artery; it should therefore be avoided in patients with a bleeding diathesis.

In patients referred for investigation because computed tomography suggests thickened gastric folds, endoscopic ultrasound is superfluous if gastroscopy is normal

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often requested in patients in whom computed tomography (CT) shows gastric wall thickening. It is unclear if EUS is useful if upper endoscopy is normal. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the yield of upper endoscopy and EUS for this indication.

METHODS

All patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound because of thickened gastric folds on CT from May 2001 and June 2003 were included. A single physician, questioned, examined, and performed upper endoscopy followed by EUS in all patients. Data were recorded prospectively. The main outcome measures were: upper endoscopy and EUS findings and predictors of abnormal EUS.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were enrolled. The average age was 57.9, 49% were male, 51% were asymptomatic, 57% had normal upper endoscopy, and 70% had normal EUS. If upper endoscopy was abnormal, EUS was abnormal in 70% of cases (95% CI 62%-78%). If upper endoscopy was normal, the EUS was normal in 100% of cases (95% CI 92%-100%). Multivariate analysis revealed that neither age, gender, presence of abdominal symptoms nor alarm symptoms predicted abnormal EUS.

CONCLUSIONS

When CT shows gastric wall thickening: (a) Nnormal upper endoscopy is strongly associated with normal EUS; (b) abnormal upper endoscopy is associated with abnormal EUS in 70% of cases; (c) clinical variables such as age, sex, and the presence of symptoms do not predict or increase the likelihood of abnormal EUS. Therefore, in patients with thickened gastric wall on CT, upper endoscopy should be used to select patients for EUS.