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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Changjuan, Mi, Jianwei, Gao, Fulai, Zhu, Xinying, Su, Miao, Xie, Xiaoli, Zhao, Dongqiang
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