Search

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic masses is still matter of debate. Aim of our meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two tissue acquisition strategies. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2021 and 8 studies were identified (2147 patients). The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test and summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference and 95% confidence Interval (CI). There was no difference in terms of baseline variables between the two groups. Pooled sample adequacy was 95.5% (95% CI 93.2%-97.8%) and 88.9% (83.4%-94.5%) in the EUS-FNB + ROSE and EUS-FNB groups, respectively (OR = 2.05, 0.94-4.49; P = 0.07). Diagnostic accuracy resulted significantly superior in the EUS-FNB + ROSE group (OR = 2.49, 1.08-5.73; P = 0.03), particularly when the analysis was restricted to reverse bevel needle (OR = 3.24, 1.19-8.82, P = 0.02), whereas no statistical difference was observed when newer end-cutting needles were used (OR = 0.71, 0.29-3.61, P = 0.56). Diagnostic sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.94, 0.84-4.49; P = 0.12), whereas pooled specificity was 100% with both approaches. The number of needle passes needed to obtain diagnostic samples was not significantly different (mean difference 0.07,-0.22 to 0.37; P = 0.62). Our meta-analysis stands for a non-superiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB with newer end-cutting needles, whereas ROSE could have still a role when reverse bevel needles are used., Competing Interests: None

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

With the development of modern EUS, multiple imaging functions, transducer settings, and examination modes have become available for clinical settings. While the major determinants of the ultrasound beam are still comprised of the signal wavelength, its frequency range, and its amplitude, other modifications and calculations have gained more interest for advanced users, such as tissue harmonic imaging (THI), spatial and frequency compounding, certain versions of speckle reduction, and various Doppler/duplex settings. The goal of such techniques is a better, perhaps more realistic image, with reduced artifacts (such as speckle), better image contrast, and an improved signal-to-noise ratio. In addition, "add-ons" such as THI, which is based on the phenomenon of nonlinear distortion of acoustic signals as they travel through tissues, provide greater contrast and an enhanced spatial resolution than conventional EUS. Finally, optimization of spectral and color Doppler imaging in EUS requires experience and knowledge about the basic principles of Doppler/duplex phenomena. For these purposes, factors such as adjustment of Doppler controls, Doppler angle, color gain, spectral wall filters, and others require special attention during EUS examinations. Incorporating these advanced techniques in EUS examinations may be time-consuming and cumbersome. Hence, practical guidelines enabling endosonographers to steer safely through the large quantity of technological properties and settings (knobology) are appreciated. This review provides an overview of the role of important imaging features to be adjusted before, during, and after EUS procedures., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

Background and Objectives: Currently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field., Methods: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized., Results: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year., Conclusion: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method., Competing Interests: None

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?, Competing Interests: None

Background and Objectives: The radial echoendoscope is still widely used for the investigation of abnormalities in the gastrointestinal wall and for stone detection in the extrahepatic biliary tree. Due to aging patient population, EUS is frequently performed in fragile and elderly individuals. We aimed to compare the maneuverability and image quality of a new thin radial echoendoscope to the current one., Patients and Methods: This evaluation was conducted at a referral academic EUS center. The new radial echoendoscope has a thinner shaft and distal tube and a shorter bending section compared to the previous one. Patients referred for diagnostic EUS with a radial echoendoscope were enrolled. Indications included pancreaticobiliary disease, esophagogastric abnormalities, and neoplasms and rectal cancer staging., Results: We enrolled 177 patients (122 pancreaticobiliary, 48 esophagogastric, and 7 rectal cases). Overall, the new echoendoscope performed better than the previous model in terms of maneuverability during esophageal intubation and transition from the duodenal bulb to the second portion. On the other hand, pylorus traversing was comparable to the current radial echoendoscope. No loss in image quality was appreciated at predefined stations (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) compared to the current model. On the other hand, image penetration depth in tissue harmonic mode was significantly improved with the new echoendoscope., Conclusions: A new thinner radial echoendoscope showed improved maneuverability compared to the existing version. Image quality was also improved thanks to increased penetration depth in the tissue harmonic mode. We speculate that this new echoendoscope may allow for safer and faster EUS examination, which may prove useful in an aging patient population., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: None

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., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Transabdominal-US is the first-line imaging modality used to assess the whole liver parenchyma and vascularization; EUS assessment of the liver is incomplete and is not sufficient to rule out the presence of focal liver lesions. On the other hand, due the high diagnostic yield in detecting very small (< 1 cm) lesions, EUS is considered complementary to radiological imaging techniques for the investigation of liver parenchyma. Scarce data are available regarding the investigation of liver parenchyma using both EUS-elastography (EUS-E) and CH-EUS. The aim of this review is to evaluate the clinical role of image enhancement techniques, namely EUS-E and contrast harmonic-EUS (CH-EUS), for the evaluation liver diseases. Despite a potential interest for the application of EUS-E in the assessment of liver diseases, available evidence relegates this technique only to research areas, such as the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant focal liver lesions and the quantification of liver fibrosis in diffuse parenchymal diseases. With the future introduction of EUS shear-wave elastography, interesting data can be obtained for the assessment of liver fibrosis during real-time EUS evaluation. The usefulness of CH-EUS for the evaluation of liver disease is limited by the intrinsic EUS ability to explore only the left lobe and a small part of the right lobe. CH-EUS could be used to increase the diagnostic ability of EUS for the detection and characterization of small lesions and for guiding tissue sampling. Targeting EUS-guided treatments with either EUS-E or CH-EUS might represent potential future applications., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

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.

There is a lack of consensus on how endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pseudocyst drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy should be performed. This survey was carried out amongst members of the EUS Journal Editorial Board to describe their practices in performing this procedure. This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey amongst members of the EUS Journal Editorial Board in May 2017. The responses to a 22-question survey with respect to the practice of EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy were obtained. Twenty-two endoscopists responded to the questionnaire as follows: 72.7% (16/22) were of the opinion that lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) should be the standard of care for the creation of an endoscopic cystenterostomy in patients with pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON); 95.5% (21/22) recommended large diameter (d=15 mm) LAMS for drainage in patients with WON; 54.5% (12/22) would not dilate LAMS after placement into the WOPN; 86.4% (19/22) would not perform endoscopic necrosectomy during the same procedure as the creation of the cystenterostomy; 45.5% (10/22) recommend that agents, such as diluted hydrogen peroxide, should be used to lavage the peri-pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) cavity in patients with WON; and 45.5% (10/22) considered a naso-cystic or other tube to be necessary for lavage of WON after initial drainage. The mean optimal interval recommended for endoscopic necrosectomy procedures after EUS-guided drainage was 6.23 days. The mean optimal interval recommended for repeat imaging in patients undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy was 12.32 days. The mean time recommended for LAMS removal was 4.59 weeks. This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy. There were wide variations in practice and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for management of this condition. There is also a pressing need to establish a best practice consensus.

Incidental pancreatic cysts (PCs) are frequently encountered in the general population often in asymptomatic patients who undergo imaging tests to investigate unrelated conditions. The detection of a PC poses a significant clinical dilemma, as the differential diagnosis is quite broad ranging from benign to malignant conditions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) has been reported to be an accurate tool in the differential diagnosis; however, its sensitivity is suboptimal and false negative results do occur. Contrast harmonic EUS (CH-EUS) was demonstrated to be a useful tool to investigate pancreatic solid lesions to differentiate between benign and malignant ones. In the setting of PCs, CH-EUS could help identify areas of malignant growth inside the cystic cavities. Several studies have reported promising results showing malignant areas in PCs as hyperenhanced lesions. Confirmation of malignancy can then be obtained by FNA, which should be precisely targeted according to the findings of the contrast harmonic study.

Background and Objectives: Failures of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging of the head of the pancreas (HOP) and the common bile duct (CBD) have been reported in up to 50% of patients with status postsurgery (e.g., Billroth II and Roux-en-Y). This is attributable to inability to intubate the afferent limb or the duodenum. Recently, a forward-view (FV) echoendoscope has become available. The frontal endoscopic and ultrasound field of view theoretically allow easier manipulation throughout the gastrointestinal tract compared to the traditional echoendoscopes. The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and performance of the FV echoendoscope for the investigation of the biliary tree and the pancreas, including fine-needle aspiration (FNA), in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively maintained database. All EUS procedures were performed at our institution by one experienced endosonographer from March to September 2009 under conscious sedation. The FV echoendoscope was used for all procedures., Results: Twenty-five (25) out of 37 presented status post-Billroth II and 12 out of 37 with status post-Roux-en-Y surgery. Overall, HOP and CBD were adequately visualized in 28 out of 37 (75.7%). All the failures occurred in the Roux-en-Y patients. EUS-FNA was successfully performed in 16 patients. No adverse events were observed., Conclusions: The FV echoendoscope proved to be safe and effective in reaching the periampullary area in patients with previous Billroth II, allowing complete exploration of the HOP and the CBD and performance of EUS-FNA. However, FV EUS was unsuccessful in the majority of patients with Roux-en-Y, which still remains a challenging condition.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) and therapeutic procedures have been performed by a curved linear array (CLA) echoendoscope since the early 1990's. This particular echoendoscope, allowing real time visualization of aspiration needles and of other devices, has substantially remained unchanged since its introduction to the market. In a context of rapidly expanding indications for EUS-guided procedures, a dedicated forward view (FV) echoendoscope has been developed and tested under different clinical conditions. The FV echoendoscope is equipped with front endoscopic and EUS view, allowing deployment of needles and other devices through the working channel in straight direction. Several new diagnostic and therapeutic applications may thereby potentially be feasible with the FV echoendoscope and the established ones may prove easier to accomplish. The published literature with the FV echoendoscope has been systematically reviewed and the results are presented analytically and discussed in detail. EUS-FNA and therapeutic procedures, including pancreatic pseudocyst drainage, treatment of gastric fundal varices, celiac plexus neurolysis, and duct drainage were reported. The FV echoendoscope showed some unique advantages, opening new possibilities such as EUS-FNA in difficult gastrointestinal tracts and combined endoscopic/EUS treatment with frontal approach. However, no statistically significant evidence of superiority of the FV echoendoscope vs. the CLA echoendoscope was found in pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. No complications specifically attributable to the use of the FV echoendoscope were reported.