Article

Frequency of major complications after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective evaluation

Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Impact Factor: 4.9). 05/2006; 63(4):622-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.05.024
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT EUS-guided FNA is effective for establishing tissue diagnosis in suspected pancreatic cancer. However, data on the frequency of major complications following EUS-FNA are limited.
To evaluate the frequency of major complications after EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.
Prospective cohort study.
Tertiary University based referral center for pancreatico-biliary disorder.
Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA of a solid pancreatic over a 42-month period. All immediate complications were recorded by the endosonographer. Late complications were assessed at 72 hours and at 30-days after the procedure.
Major complications were defined as acute pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, perforation, use of reversal medication, hospitalization or death.
A total of 355 consecutive patients with a solid pancreatic mass underwent EUS FNA. Major complications were encountered in 9 patients (2.54%, 95% CI 1.17-4.76). Acute pancreatitis occurred in 3 of 355 (0.85 %, 95% CI 0.17-2.45); 2 patients were hospitalized, and 1 patient recovered with outpatient analgesics. Three patients were admitted for severe pain after the procedure; all were treated with analgesics and subsequently discharged with no sequela. Two patients (0.56%, 95% CI 0.07-2.02) developed fever and were admitted for intravenous antibiotics; 1 patient recovered with intravenous antibiotics and the other required surgical debridement for necrosis. One patient required the use of reversal medication. Overall, 1.97% (95% CI 0.80-4.02) of the patients were hospitalized for complications (range 1-16 days). None of the patients experienced clinically significant hemorrhage, perforation, or death. No clear predisposing risk factors were identified.
Lack of surgical gold standard and referral to a tertiary center.
EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses infrequently leads to major complications. Our results can be used by endosonographers to counsel patients before EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses.

1 Follower
 · 
127 Views
  • Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 11/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.066 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET), and metastatic lesions (pMET) are the most common neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Early diagnosis enables prompt treatment. To identify factors differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions and assess the accuracy of EUS-guided FNA. Retrospective tertiary center. Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of SPLs from 2004 to 2011. Pretest (preceding EUS-guided FNA [EUS-FNA]) predictors of PDAC among neoplastic SPLs and accuracy of EUS-FNA. A total of 1333 EUS scans with 1108 EUS-FNAs were performed for pancreatic lesions. Of the 672 patients with neoplastic SPLs, 528 had PDAC and 144 non-PDAC. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 97.3%, 99.3%, 99.8%, and 97.8%, respectively. Years of EUS experience significantly correlated with fewer needle passes (Rs = -0.18, P < .001). Controlling for all potential confounders, multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that patients with PDAC compared with pNETs and pMETs were older (odds ratio [OR] 4.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1-9.5; P < .001), had weight loss (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.6-5.4; P < .001), hyperbilirubinemia (OR 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5; P < .001), elevated CA19-9 (OR 6.9; 95% CI, 2.4-20.3; P < .01), evidence of arterial invasion (OR 6.5; 95% CI, 2.7-15.4; P < .001), and PD dilation (OR 3.3; 95% CI, 1.8-5.9; P < .001). Retrospective design, single center. When evaluating neoplastic SPLs, demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging characteristics can reliably discern and suggest PDAC. In addition, EUS-FNA is exceedingly sensitive and specific for PDAC. Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2014; 81(2). DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.023 · 4.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acute endoscopic perforations of the foregut and colon are rare but can have devastating consequences. There are several principles and practices that can lower the risk of perforation and guide the endoscopist in early assessment when they do occur. Mastery of these principles will lead to overall improved patient outcomes. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.