Wet- versus dry-suction techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Author:

Wang Yun1,Wang Rong-hua1,Ding Zhen2,Tan Shi-yun3,Chen Qian1,Duan Ya-qi45,Zhu Liang-ru2,Cao Ji-wang3,Wang Jian6,Shi Gan6,Wu Xiao-li1,Wang Jin-lin7,Zhao Yu-chong1,Tang Shou-jiang8,Cheng Bin1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

2. Division of Gastroenterology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

3. Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China

4. Institute of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

5. Department of Pathology, School of Basic Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

6. Department of Gastroenterology, The Central Hospital of Wuhan, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

7. Department of Oncology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China

8. Division of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi, USA

Abstract

Abstract Background The optimal sampling techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain unclear and have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to compare the wet-suction and dry-suction techniques for sampling solid lesions in the pancreas, mediastinum, and abdomen. Methods This was a multicenter, crossover, randomized controlled trial with randomized order of sampling techniques. The 296 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA with 22G needles and were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into two separate groups that received the dry-suction and wet-suction techniques in a different order. The primary outcome was to compare the histological diagnostic accuracy of dry suction and wet suction for malignancy. The secondary outcomes were to compare the cytological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality. Results Among the 269 patients with pancreatic (n = 161) and non-pancreatic (n = 108) lesions analyzed, the wet-suction technique had a significantly better histological diagnostic accuracy (84.9 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 79.9 % – 89.0 %] vs. 73.2 % [95 %CI 67.1 % – 78.7 %]; P = 0.001), higher specimen adequacy (94.8 % vs. 78.8 %; P < 0.001), and less blood contamination (P < 0.001) than the dry-suction technique. In addition, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of wet suction provided a histological diagnostic accuracy of 91.6 %. Conclusions The wet-suction technique in EUS-FNA generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry-suction technique. Furthermore, sampling non-pancreatic lesions with two passes of EUS-FNA with wet suction may provide a definitive histological diagnosis when rapid on-site evaluation is not routinely available.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Gastroenterology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3