Cargando…

Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Giri, Suprabhat, Afzalpurkar, Shivaraj, Angadi, Sumaswi, Sundaram, Sridhar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36205045
http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.133
_version_ 1784803462422200320
author Giri, Suprabhat
Afzalpurkar, Shivaraj
Angadi, Sumaswi
Sundaram, Sridhar
author_facet Giri, Suprabhat
Afzalpurkar, Shivaraj
Angadi, Sumaswi
Sundaram, Sridhar
author_sort Giri, Suprabhat
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=–4.53 seconds; 95% CI, –22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9539302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95393022022-10-17 Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis Giri, Suprabhat Afzalpurkar, Shivaraj Angadi, Sumaswi Sundaram, Sridhar Clin Endosc Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis BACKGROUND/AIMS: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=–4.53 seconds; 95% CI, –22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events. Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2022-09 2022-08-04 /pmc/articles/PMC9539302/ /pubmed/36205045 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.133 Text en Copyright © 2022 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Giri, Suprabhat
Afzalpurkar, Shivaraj
Angadi, Sumaswi
Sundaram, Sridhar
Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-assisted tissue acquisition for subepithelial lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9539302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36205045
http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.133
work_keys_str_mv AT girisuprabhat mucosalincisionassistedbiopsyversusendoscopicultrasoundassistedtissueacquisitionforsubepitheliallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT afzalpurkarshivaraj mucosalincisionassistedbiopsyversusendoscopicultrasoundassistedtissueacquisitionforsubepitheliallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT angadisumaswi mucosalincisionassistedbiopsyversusendoscopicultrasoundassistedtissueacquisitionforsubepitheliallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sundaramsridhar mucosalincisionassistedbiopsyversusendoscopicultrasoundassistedtissueacquisitionforsubepitheliallesionsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis