Cargando…

Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramai, Daryl, Singh, Jameel, Kani, Tarik, Barakat, Mohamed, Chandan, Saurabh, Brooks, Olivia W., Ofosu, Andrew, Khan, Shahab R., Dhindsa, Banreet, Dhaliwal, Amaninder, Quintero, Eduardo J., Cheung, Derrick, Facciorusso, Antonio, McDonough, Stephanie, Adler, Douglas G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34259217
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00198
_version_ 1784589731404709888
author Ramai, Daryl
Singh, Jameel
Kani, Tarik
Barakat, Mohamed
Chandan, Saurabh
Brooks, Olivia W.
Ofosu, Andrew
Khan, Shahab R.
Dhindsa, Banreet
Dhaliwal, Amaninder
Quintero, Eduardo J.
Cheung, Derrick
Facciorusso, Antonio
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
author_facet Ramai, Daryl
Singh, Jameel
Kani, Tarik
Barakat, Mohamed
Chandan, Saurabh
Brooks, Olivia W.
Ofosu, Andrew
Khan, Shahab R.
Dhindsa, Banreet
Dhaliwal, Amaninder
Quintero, Eduardo J.
Cheung, Derrick
Facciorusso, Antonio
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
author_sort Ramai, Daryl
collection PubMed
description The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82–5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75–1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%–62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%– 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82–16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8544017
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85440172021-11-09 Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis Ramai, Daryl Singh, Jameel Kani, Tarik Barakat, Mohamed Chandan, Saurabh Brooks, Olivia W. Ofosu, Andrew Khan, Shahab R. Dhindsa, Banreet Dhaliwal, Amaninder Quintero, Eduardo J. Cheung, Derrick Facciorusso, Antonio McDonough, Stephanie Adler, Douglas G. Endosc Ultrasound Review Article The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82–5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75–1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%–62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%– 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82–16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8544017/ /pubmed/34259217 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00198 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Endoscopic Ultrasound https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Review Article
Ramai, Daryl
Singh, Jameel
Kani, Tarik
Barakat, Mohamed
Chandan, Saurabh
Brooks, Olivia W.
Ofosu, Andrew
Khan, Shahab R.
Dhindsa, Banreet
Dhaliwal, Amaninder
Quintero, Eduardo J.
Cheung, Derrick
Facciorusso, Antonio
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for EUS-FNA of solid lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort wet- versus dry-suction techniques for eus-fna of solid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8544017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34259217
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/EUS-D-20-00198
work_keys_str_mv AT ramaidaryl wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT singhjameel wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kanitarik wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT barakatmohamed wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chandansaurabh wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT brooksoliviaw wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ofosuandrew wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT khanshahabr wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dhindsabanreet wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dhaliwalamaninder wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT quinteroeduardoj wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT cheungderrick wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT facciorussoantonio wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mcdonoughstephanie wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT adlerdouglasg wetversusdrysuctiontechniquesforeusfnaofsolidlesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis