Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Endoscopy. 2018 May;50(5):497-504. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-122381. Epub 2017 Dec 22.

Stylet slow-pull versus standard suction for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

Author information

1
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
2
Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
3
Digestive Disease Institute, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States.
4
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM:

Standard endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) procedures involve use of no-suction or suction aspiration techniques. A new aspiration method, the stylet slow-pull technique, involves slow withdrawal of the needle stylet to create minimum negative pressure. The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of EUS-FNA using stylet slow-pull or suction techniques for malignant solid pancreatic lesions using a standard 22-gauge needle.

PATIENTS AND METHODS:

Consecutive patients presenting for EUS-FNA of pancreatic mass lesions were randomized to the stylet slow-pull or suction techniques using a 22-gauge needle. Both techniques were standardized for each pass until an adequate specimen was obtained, as determined by rapid on-site cytology examination. Patients were crossed over to the alternative technique after four nondiagnostic passes.

RESULTS:

Of 147 patients screened, 121 (mean age 64 ± 13.8 years) met inclusion criteria and were randomized to the stylet slow-pull technique (n = 61) or the suction technique (n = 60). Technical success rates were 96.7 % and 98.3 % in the slow-pull and suction groups, respectively (P > 0.99). The sensitivity for malignancy of EUS-FNA was 82 % in the slow-pull group and 69 % in the suction group (P = 0.10). The first-pass diagnostic rate (42.6 % vs. 38.3 %; P = 0.71), acquisition of core tissue (60.6 % vs. 46.7 %; P = 0.14), and the median (range) number of passes to diagnosis (2 1 2 3 vs. 1 1 2; P = 0.71) were similar in the slow-pull and suction groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The stylet slow-pull and suction techniques both offered high and comparable diagnostic sensitivity with a mean of 2 passes required for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. The endosonographer may choose either technique during FNA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION:

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01936467.

PMID:
29272906
DOI:
10.1055/s-0043-122381

Conflict of interest statement

Boston Scientific provided a research grant for the study but had no involvement in study design, data collection or data analysis.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York
Loading ...
Support Center