Search

Background and Aims: Although conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs., Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed., Results: Two hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group., Conclusions: EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs., Methods: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees., Results: Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases., Conclusion: The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.)., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

A workshop was sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases to address the research gaps and opportunities in pancreatic EUS. The event occurred on July 26, 2017 in 4 sessions: (1) benign pancreatic diseases, (2) high-risk pancreatic diseases, (3) diagnostic and therapeutics, and (4) new technologies. The current state of knowledge was reviewed, with identification of numerous gaps in knowledge and research needs. Common themes included the need for large multicenter consortia of various pancreatic diseases to facilitate meaningful research of these entities; to standardize EUS features of different pancreatic disorders, the technique of sampling pancreatic lesions, and the performance of various therapeutic EUS procedures; and to identify high-risk disease early at the cellular level before macroscopic disease develops. The need for specialized tools and accessories to enable the safe and effective performance of therapeutic EUS procedures also was discussed., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and Wolters Kluwer. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development., Methods: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices., Results: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001)., Conclusions: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

This is one of a series of documents prepared by the ASGE Training Committee. This curriculum document contains recommendations for training, intended for use by endoscopy training directors, endoscopists involved in teaching endoscopy, and trainees in endoscopy. It was developed as an overview of techniques currently favored for the performance and training of small-bowel endoscopy and to serve as a guide to published references, videotapes, and other resources available to the trainer. By providing information to endoscopy trainers about the common practices used by experts in performing the technical aspects of the procedure, the ASGE hopes to improve the teaching and performance of small-bowel endoscopy.

Background: EUS has less than optimal interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. The newly developed Rosemont consensus scoring system includes weighted criteria and stricter definitions for individual features., Objective: The primary aim was to compare the interobserver agreement of standard and Rosemont scoring., Setting: Multiple tertiary-care institutions., Intervention: Fifty EUS videos were interpreted by 14 experts. Each expert interpreted the videos on two occasions: First, the videos were read by using standard scoring (9 criteria). Second, after viewing a presentation of the Rosemont classification, the same experts re-read the videos by using Rosemont scoring., Main Outcome Measurements: Fleiss' kappa (K) statistics are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: The interobserver agreement was "substantial" (K = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.77]) for Rosemont scoring and "moderate" (K = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.44-0.66]) for standard scoring; however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.12)., Limitations: The sample size does not allow detection of differences in K of <0.25., Conclusion: Use of the Rosemont classification did not significantly increase interobserver agreement for EUS diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis compared with standard scoring., (2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic removal of malfunctioning self-expandable metallic biliary stents (SEMS) is difficult and not well described. The aim of this study is to review the indications, the techniques, and the results of SEMS removal in a cohort of patients with malfunctioning stents., Methods: All patients who underwent an attempt at endoscopic removal of biliary SEMS over a 5-year period were retrospectively identified. The main indications for SEMS removal were the following: distal migration of the stent or impaction to the duodenum, impaction into the bile-duct wall, tissue ingrowth, and inappropriate length of the stent causing occlusion of intrahepatic ducts. SEMS were removed by using foreign-body forceps or polypectomy snares., Results: Endoscopic removal of 39 SEMS (13 uncovered and 26 covered) was attempted in 29 patients (17 men; mean age, 66 years). SEMS extraction was attempted after a mean of 7.5 months (8.75 months standard deviation) post-SEMS insertion. Removal was successful in 20 patients (68.9%) and in 29 SEMS (74.3%). Covered SEMS were effectively removed more frequently than uncovered ones: 24 of 26 (92.3%) and 5 of 13 (38.4%), respectively (p < 0.05). No major complications were recorded. Multivariate analysis showed that the time interval between insertion and removal, SEMS length, stent-mesh design (zigzag vs. interlaced), and indication for removal were not predictive of success at stent removal., Conclusions: Endoscopic removal of biliary SEMS is feasible and safe in more than 70% of cases. Because only 38% of uncovered SEMS were removable, the presence of a stent covering is the only factor predictive of successful stent extraction. The presence of diffuse and severe ingrowth was the main feature limiting SEMS removal.

Background: Head-mounted video displays recently became available for endoscopy. This study compared a video headset with a conventional monitor during colonoscopy., Methods: Five endoscopists were randomized to headset or to monitor use during colonoscopy. They completed a questionnaire that assessed image quality, procedure characteristics, and comfort. Medication use and length of procedure were recorded., Results: A total of 96 colonoscopies were performed. Image quality and comfort were rated as poorer during headset use (p < 0.05). However, neck strain was significantly reduced with the headset. Medication use and total procedure time were similar. There was a trend toward increased time to cecum with the headset (9.8 vs. 8.0 minutes, p = 0.055)., Conclusions: In this randomized study, comparing a video headset and a conventional monitor for colonoscopy, image quality and comfort were inferior with the headset, although neck strain was improved. Further improvements in technology are needed before headsets can be considered an acceptable alternative to the conventional video monitor for GI endoscopy.