Shenglin Xu, Jianian Guo, Mengbin Qin, Yiteng Meng, Fang Xie, Weiguang Qiao, Haiyan Hu, Peng Peng, Jahan Rownoak, Socheat Heng, Finang Ung, Yaping Ye, Jing Wang, Weixin Li, Yingying Zou, Li Zou, Shaohui Huang, Side Liu, Junfen Wang, Jun Yao, Yue Li
{"title":"Dry suction versus wet suction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions:a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.","authors":"Shenglin Xu, Jianian Guo, Mengbin Qin, Yiteng Meng, Fang Xie, Weiguang Qiao, Haiyan Hu, Peng Peng, Jahan Rownoak, Socheat Heng, Finang Ung, Yaping Ye, Jing Wang, Weixin Li, Yingying Zou, Li Zou, Shaohui Huang, Side Liu, Junfen Wang, Jun Yao, Yue Li","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003389","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Conclusions regarding the suction techniques of EUS-FNB remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) and determine the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This investigation was conducted as a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Patients with SPLs were randomly allocated to receive either the dry or wet suction technique. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. The secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, optimal number of needle passes, specimen quality, procedure time, and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 200 patients, 193 were included in the final analysis, with 96 in the dry suction group and 97 in the wet suction group. The diagnostic accuracies were 97.92% and 96.91% in the dry and wet groups, respectively, with a 1.01% difference between the study groups (two-sided 95% CI, -3.47% to 5.48%, P=0.659). The overall adverse event rate was 2.6%. No significant differences were observed in sample adequacy (98.9% vs. 98.9%, P = 1) or blood contamination (P = 0.796). Regarding procedure time, there was no statistical difference (18.68±8.03 min vs. 19.36±8.89 min, P=0.626); however, more procedural steps were required in the wet suction technique. No significant difference was found between the cumulative diagnostic accuracy of each needle (1st pass 93.78% vs. 2nd pass 95.34% vs. 3rd pass 97.41%, P = 0.225).</p><p><strong>Disscussion: </strong>The dry suction technique is non-inferior to the wet suction technique for EUS-FNB in SPLs. In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), only one pass was required to achieve more than 90% diagnostic accuracy. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT05549856.).</p>","PeriodicalId":7608,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003389","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: Conclusions regarding the suction techniques of EUS-FNB remain controversial. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) and determine the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB.
Methods: This investigation was conducted as a multicenter, randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Patients with SPLs were randomly allocated to receive either the dry or wet suction technique. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. The secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, optimal number of needle passes, specimen quality, procedure time, and adverse events.
Results: Of the 200 patients, 193 were included in the final analysis, with 96 in the dry suction group and 97 in the wet suction group. The diagnostic accuracies were 97.92% and 96.91% in the dry and wet groups, respectively, with a 1.01% difference between the study groups (two-sided 95% CI, -3.47% to 5.48%, P=0.659). The overall adverse event rate was 2.6%. No significant differences were observed in sample adequacy (98.9% vs. 98.9%, P = 1) or blood contamination (P = 0.796). Regarding procedure time, there was no statistical difference (18.68±8.03 min vs. 19.36±8.89 min, P=0.626); however, more procedural steps were required in the wet suction technique. No significant difference was found between the cumulative diagnostic accuracy of each needle (1st pass 93.78% vs. 2nd pass 95.34% vs. 3rd pass 97.41%, P = 0.225).
Disscussion: The dry suction technique is non-inferior to the wet suction technique for EUS-FNB in SPLs. In the absence of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), only one pass was required to achieve more than 90% diagnostic accuracy. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT05549856.).
期刊介绍:
Published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) stands as the foremost clinical journal in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. AJG offers practical and professional support to clinicians addressing the most prevalent gastroenterological disorders in patients.