Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: A systematic review and meta-Analysis

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the choice of methods for suspected lymph nodes (LNs) located next to the gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to compare the pooled diagnostic performance of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for LNs sampling. Methods: We searched PubMed/MedLine and Embase databases through August 2021. Primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. We performed a pairwise meta-Analysis using a random-effects model. The results are presented as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We identified nine studies (1,276 patients) in this meta-Analysis. Among these patients, 66.4% were male; the median age was 67 years. Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the two approaches (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.81-2.10; P = 0.270). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was significantly higher when being performed with newer end-cutting needles (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.17-3.00; P = 0.009) and in abdominal LNs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.52-4.05; P < 0.001) than that of EUS-FNA. No difference in terms of sample adequacy was observed between the two approaches (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 0.46-4.26; P = 0.550); however, histological core procurement and diagnostic sensitivity with EUS-FNB were significantly higher than those with EUS-FNA (OR, 6.15; 95% CI, 1.51-25.07; P = 0.010 and OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.27-2.74, P = 0.001). The number of needle passes needed was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB group than in the EUS-FNA group (mean difference,-0.54; 95% CI,-0.97 to-0.12; P = 0.010). Conclusions: EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB perform similarly in LN sampling; however, FNB performed with end-cutting needles outperformed FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy

Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta‐analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans‐hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88– 1.17 with EUS‐choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CD); RR 1.03, 0.86–1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HG); RR 1.42, 0.90–2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS‐HG and EUS‐CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87–1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91–2.13 with EUS‐CD and RR 1.38, 0.88–2.16 with EUS‐HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events

Performance and Safety of EUS Ablation Techniques for Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) represent an increasingly diagnosed condition with significant burden to patients’ lives and medical resources. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) ablation techniques have been utilized to treat focal pancreatic lesions. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of EUS ablation on PCL in terms of complete or partial response and safety. Methods: A systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed in April 2023 for studies assessing the performance of the various EUS ablation techniques. The primary outcome was complete cyst resolution, defined as cyst disappearance in follow-up imaging. Secondary outcomes included partial resolution (reduction in PCL size), and adverse events rate. A subgroup analysis was planned to evaluate the impact of the available ablation techniques (ethanol, ethanol/paclitaxel, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and lauromacrogol) on the results. Meta-analyses using a random effects model were conducted and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Results: Fifteen studies (840 patients) were eligible for analysis. Complete cyst resolution after EUS ablation was achieved in 44% of cases (95%CI: 31–57; 352/767; I2 = 93.7%), and the respective partial response rate was 30% (95%CI: 20–39; 206/767; I2 = 86.1%). Adverse events were recorded in 14% (95%CI: 8–20; 164/840; I2 = 87.2%) of cases, rated as mild in 10% (95%CI: 5–15; 128/840; I2 = 86.7%), and severe in 4% (95%CI: 3–5; 36/840; I2 = 0%). The subgroup analysis for the primary outcome revealed rates of 70% (95%CI: 64–76; I2 = 42.3%) for ethanol/paclitaxel, 44% (95%CI: 33–54; I2= 0%) for lauromacrogol, 32% (95%CI: 27–36; I2 = 88.4%) for ethanol, and 13% (95%CI: 4–22; I2 = 95.8%) for RFA. Considering adverse events, the ethanol-based subgroup rated the highest percentage (16%; 95%CI: 13–20; I2 = 91.0%). Conclusion: EUS ablation of pancreatic cysts provides acceptable rates of complete resolution and a low incidence of severe adverse events, with chemoablative agents yielding higher performance rates

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 1: definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

Main recommendationsCellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

Main recommendationsCellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog