TY - JOUR
T1 - Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in the diagnosis of upper GI subepithelial lesions with EUS-guided FNA
T2 - A prospective, randomized, crossover study
AU - Matsuzaki, Ippei
AU - Miyahara, Ryoji
AU - Hirooka, Yoshiki
AU - Funasaka, Kohei
AU - Ohno, Eizaburo
AU - Nakamura, Masanao
AU - Kawashima, Hiroki
AU - Nukaga, Akiko
AU - Shimoyama, Yoshie
AU - Goto, Hidemi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
PY - 2015/8/1
Y1 - 2015/8/1
N2 - Background The role of the forward-viewing echoendoscope compared with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope for EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of upper GI subepithelial lesions has not been defined. Objective To compare the diagnostic yield and clinical efficacy of EUS-FNA by using the 2 echoendoscopes in the same upper GI subepithelial lesion. Design Prospective, randomized, crossover study. Setting Tertiary-care medical center. Patients Forty-one patients with an upper GI subepithelial lesion. Interventions All patients first underwent EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge needle by using both echoendoscopes, based on random selection. When required, 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles were used additionally. Main Outcome Measurements Comparison of diagnostic yield, tissue sample area, puncture success rates, procedure time, and adverse events. Results Forty-one patients (median lesion size 22 mm, range 15-63 mm) were enrolled. Rates of histologic diagnosis were 80.5% (33/41) and 73.2% (30/41) (P =.453) by using forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median tissue sample area in GI stromal tumors (n = 22) obtained with the forward-viewing echoendoscope was larger than with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (2.46 mm2 vs 1.00 mm2; P =.046). Puncture success rates were 39 of 41 (95.1%) and 35 of 41 (85.4%; P =.289) with forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median procedure time was 21 minutes with the forward-viewing echoendoscope and 27 minutes with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (P =.009). An infectious adverse event occurred in a patient and was treated with antibiotics. Limitations Small sample size. Conclusion Diagnostic yield did not differ between the 2 echoendoscopes. However, tissue sample area and procedure time were superior with the forward-viewing echoendoscope.
AB - Background The role of the forward-viewing echoendoscope compared with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope for EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of upper GI subepithelial lesions has not been defined. Objective To compare the diagnostic yield and clinical efficacy of EUS-FNA by using the 2 echoendoscopes in the same upper GI subepithelial lesion. Design Prospective, randomized, crossover study. Setting Tertiary-care medical center. Patients Forty-one patients with an upper GI subepithelial lesion. Interventions All patients first underwent EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge needle by using both echoendoscopes, based on random selection. When required, 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles were used additionally. Main Outcome Measurements Comparison of diagnostic yield, tissue sample area, puncture success rates, procedure time, and adverse events. Results Forty-one patients (median lesion size 22 mm, range 15-63 mm) were enrolled. Rates of histologic diagnosis were 80.5% (33/41) and 73.2% (30/41) (P =.453) by using forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median tissue sample area in GI stromal tumors (n = 22) obtained with the forward-viewing echoendoscope was larger than with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (2.46 mm2 vs 1.00 mm2; P =.046). Puncture success rates were 39 of 41 (95.1%) and 35 of 41 (85.4%; P =.289) with forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median procedure time was 21 minutes with the forward-viewing echoendoscope and 27 minutes with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (P =.009). An infectious adverse event occurred in a patient and was treated with antibiotics. Limitations Small sample size. Conclusion Diagnostic yield did not differ between the 2 echoendoscopes. However, tissue sample area and procedure time were superior with the forward-viewing echoendoscope.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84937392566&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84937392566&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.051
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.051
M3 - Article
C2 - 25816723
AN - SCOPUS:84937392566
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 82
SP - 287
EP - 295
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 2
ER -