Search

Background: Despite weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (EUS-TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is routinely used in clinical practice. We aim to compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before EUS-TTNB of PCLs and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis. Methods: Out of 236 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred to two high-volume centers between 2016 and 2021, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: 98 subjects who underwent EUS-TTNB under antibiotic prophylaxis and 49 subjects without prophylaxis. Results: There was no difference in terms of baseline parameters between groups. Final diagnosis was serous cystadenoma in 36.7% of patients in the group not treated with prophylaxis and in 37.7% of patients in the control group, whereas IPMN and mucinous cystadenoma were diagnosed in 3 (6.1%) and 16 (32.6%) versus 6 (6.1%) and 32 (32.6%) patients in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.23). Overall, the adverse event rate was 6.1% in the group not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.1% in the control group (p = 0.49). Only a single infectious adverse event occurred in each group (p = 0.48). The diagnostic yields were 89.7% and 90.8% in the two groups (p = 0.7), and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 81.6% in both groups (p = 1.0). Conclusions: Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence the risk of infection, and their routine use should be discouraged.

Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.