scholarly journals Does General Anesthesia Increase the Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses?

2012 ◽  
Vol 117 (5) ◽  
pp. 1044-1050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiyo Ootaki ◽  
Tyler Stevens ◽  
John Vargo ◽  
Jing You ◽  
Ayako Shiba ◽  
...  

Background : Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of the pancreas has become the preferred method for tissue diagnosis for pancreatic solid masses. The yield of EUS-FNA in this setting is influenced by multiple factors. We hypothesized that general anesthesia (GA) may improve EUS-FNA yield by improving patient cooperation and stillness during the procedure. Our objective was to assess the association between the sedation method employed and the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. Methods : A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving consecutive patients who received EUS-FNA for diagnosis of a solid pancreatic mass at the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH) gastrointestinal endoscopy units from 2007 to 2009. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA between patients receiving GA provided by an anesthesiologist (GA group) and patients receiving conscious sedation (CS) provided by a qualified registered nurse (CS group). Results : Of 371 patients, a cytological diagnosis was obtained in 73/88 patients (83%) in the GA group and 206/283 patients (73%) in the CS group. Anesthesiologist-delivered GA was associated with an increased odds of having a successful diagnosis as compared with CS (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]: 2.56 [1.27-5.17], P = 0.01). However, the incidence of complication during or after the procedure was not different between the groups (P > 0.99). Conclusions : Anesthesiologist-delivered GA was associated with a significantly higher diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA. GA should be considered a preferred sedation method for EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic mass.

2011 ◽  
Vol 56 (11) ◽  
pp. 3370-3375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali A. Siddiqui ◽  
Lauren J. Brown ◽  
Shih-Kuang S. Hong ◽  
Rossitza A. Draganova-Tacheva ◽  
Jason Korenblit ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. AB246-AB247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shih-Kuang S. Hong ◽  
Lauren J. Brown ◽  
Rossitza A. Draganova-Tacheva ◽  
Jason Korenblit ◽  
David E. Loren ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecilia Curvale ◽  
Ignacio Málaga ◽  
Paloma Rojas Saunero ◽  
Viviana Tassi ◽  
Enrique Martins ◽  
...  

Differential diagnosis of pancreatic masses is challenging. The endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration method with the highest diagnostic yield has not been established. It was realized a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of the endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in solid lesions of the pancreas to compare and evaluate diagnostic yield and aspirate quality between wet and pull technique. Forty-one patients were enrolled. The wet technique presented a sensitivity, a specificity, a positive and negative predictive value, and a diagnostic accuracy of 58.3%, 100%, 100%, 25% and 63.4%, respectively. In the capillary technique they were: 75%, 100%, 100%, 35.7% and 78.1%, respectively. Comparing the diagnostic yield between both techniques, there was no statistically significant difference (McNemar’s test p = 0.388). Regarding the cellularity of the specimen, both in cytology and the cell block samples, no significant difference was observed between the techniques (p = 0.84 and 0.61, respectively). With respect to contaminating blood in the specimen, there was no difference in cytology samples (p = 0.89) and no difference in cell block samples (p = 0.08). The suitability of cytology samples for diagnosis was similar in both techniques (wet = 57.5% and capillary = 56.7%, p = 0.94) and there was no difference in cell block samples (wet = 75% and capillary = 66.1%, p = 0.38). In this study we did not observe differences in diagnostic yield or sample quality. Since both techniques are effective, we suggest the simultaneous and alternate use of both methods.


2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 2006-2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryo Sugiura ◽  
Masaki Kuwatani ◽  
Koji Hirata ◽  
Itsuki Sano ◽  
Shin Kato ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document