Cargando…
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-F...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722532/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35002300 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S342525 |
_version_ | 1784625531333902336 |
---|---|
author | Li, Changjuan Mi, Jianwei Gao, Fulai Zhu, Xinying Su, Miao Xie, Xiaoli Zhao, Dongqiang |
author_facet | Li, Changjuan Mi, Jianwei Gao, Fulai Zhu, Xinying Su, Miao Xie, Xiaoli Zhao, Dongqiang |
author_sort | Li, Changjuan |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8722532 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Dove |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87225322022-01-06 Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions Li, Changjuan Mi, Jianwei Gao, Fulai Zhu, Xinying Su, Miao Xie, Xiaoli Zhao, Dongqiang Int J Gen Med Original Research PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time. Dove 2021-12-30 /pmc/articles/PMC8722532/ /pubmed/35002300 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S342525 Text en © 2021 Li et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Li, Changjuan Mi, Jianwei Gao, Fulai Zhu, Xinying Su, Miao Xie, Xiaoli Zhao, Dongqiang Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title | Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full | Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_short | Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions |
title_sort | comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 19-gauge and 22-gauge needles for solid pancreatic lesions |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8722532/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35002300 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S342525 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lichangjuan comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT mijianwei comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT gaofulai comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT zhuxinying comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT sumiao comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT xiexiaoli comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions AT zhaodongqiang comparisonofendoscopicultrasoundguidedfineneedleaspirationwith19gaugeand22gaugeneedlesforsolidpancreaticlesions |