Contrast Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Diseases

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was first described in 1986, with the aim of overcoming the problems affecting transabdominal ultrasound imaging, mainly problems related to the interposition of gas, and artifacts produced by bone or fat. Now, EUS can be considered as the best method for the analysis of pancreatic diseases, overtaking the diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. However, fundamental B-mode imaging is limited for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, because most of them are depicted as heterogeneous and hypo-echoic, and it is difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. Similar to how perfusion patterns obtained by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging after injection of contrast agents allow for the characterization of focal lesions, EUS has also recently been introduced to the use of contrast agents for performing contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS), which has the capability to distinguish the type of perfusion between lesions and surrounding tissue. CEH-EUS has shown its usefulness for the diagnosis and characterization of solid pancreatic lesions. Moreover, CEH-EUS is also highly accurate for distinguishing non-neoplastic from neoplastic cysts in pancreatic lesions. Another potential role of CEH-EUS is its ability to direct EUS-guided tissue acquisition

What should be known prior to performing EUS exams? (Part II)

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

Do we need elastography for EUS?

none20siWe 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.openDietrich, Christoph F; Burmeister, Sean; Hollerbach, Stephan; Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio; Braden, Barbara; Fusaroli, Pietro; Hocke, Michael; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Kitano, Masayuki; Larghi, Alberto; Napoleon, Bertrand; Oppong, Kofi W; Rimbas, Mihai; Saftoiu, Adrian; Sahai, Anand V; Sun, Siyu; Dong, Yi; Carrara, Silvia; Hwang, Joo Ha; Jenssen, ChristianDietrich, Christoph F; Burmeister, Sean; Hollerbach, Stephan; Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio; Braden, Barbara; Fusaroli, Pietro; Hocke, Michael; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Kitano, Masayuki; Larghi, Alberto; Napoleon, Bertrand; Oppong, Kofi W; Rimbas, Mihai; Saftoiu, Adrian; Sahai, Anand V; Sun, Siyu; Dong, Yi; Carrara, Silvia; Hwang, Joo Ha; Jenssen, Christia

How to perform EUS-guided tattooing?

none23siRecently, 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.openRimbas, Mihai; Larghi, Alberto; Fusaroli, Pietro; Dong, Yi; Hollerbach, Stephan; Jenssen, Christian; Săftoiu, Adrian; Sahai, Anand V; Napoleon, Bertrand; Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio; Braden, Barbara; Burmeister, Sean; Carrara, Silvia; Cui, Xin Wu; Hocke, Michael; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Kitano, Masayuki; Oppong, Kofi W; Sun, Siyu; Di Leo, Milena; Petrone, Maria Chiara; B Teoh, Anthony Y; Dietrich, Christoph FRimbas, Mihai; Larghi, Alberto; Fusaroli, Pietro; Dong, Yi; Hollerbach, Stephan; Jenssen, Christian; Săftoiu, Adrian; Sahai, Anand V; Napoleon, Bertrand; Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio; Braden, Barbara; Burmeister, Sean; Carrara, Silvia; Cui, Xin Wu; Hocke, Michael; Iglesias-Garcia, Julio; Kitano, Masayuki; Oppong, Kofi W; Sun, Siyu; Di Leo, Milena; Petrone, Maria Chiara; B Teoh, Anthony Y; Dietrich, Christoph

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used