The Benign Liver EUS Optimal Core Study (BLOCs): A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study Evaluating Wet-suction Versus Slow Pull Technique for EUS-guided Liver Biopsy.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Neil R Sharma, Harishankar Gopakumar, Harshit Khara, Abhilash Perisetti, Saurabh Gupta, Mariajose Rojas DeLeon, Marzena Muller, Christina Zelt, Mindy Flanagan, Ashley Rumple, Amitpal Johal, Bradley Confer, Jiahong Li, Meir Mizrahi, Ann Chen, Kefu Li, Mohammad Al-Haddad, Mohamed Othman, Isaac Raijman, Abdul H El Chafic, David Diehl
{"title":"The Benign Liver EUS Optimal Core Study (BLOCs): A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study Evaluating Wet-suction Versus Slow Pull Technique for EUS-guided Liver Biopsy.","authors":"Neil R Sharma, Harishankar Gopakumar, Harshit Khara, Abhilash Perisetti, Saurabh Gupta, Mariajose Rojas DeLeon, Marzena Muller, Christina Zelt, Mindy Flanagan, Ashley Rumple, Amitpal Johal, Bradley Confer, Jiahong Li, Meir Mizrahi, Ann Chen, Kefu Li, Mohammad Al-Haddad, Mohamed Othman, Isaac Raijman, Abdul H El Chafic, David Diehl","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002168","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The specimen quality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) for benign liver disease evaluation depends on the technique and type of needle used. Using a 19-gauge (19 g) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle with 3 actuations and wet suction (WS) or slow stylet pull is the current preferred practice. We conducted a randomized prospective multicenter trial to compare wet suction (WS) to slow stylet pull (SP) technique to compare histologic yields, length of procedure, and adverse events (AE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective randomized trial (NCT03245580) included patients undergoing EUS-LB for parenchymal biopsy at 6 centers in the United States in 2020-2021. A 19 g Franseen tip EUS needle was used for all procedures. For WS, the needle was flushed with saline, and a 20 ml suction syringe with 3 to 5 ml of fluid was used. For SP, a slow pullback of stylet was used. Pathologist was blinded for tissue interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred fifty-three patients across 6 tertiary centers were included, with 75 patients in the WS arm and 78 patients in the SP arm. Histologic outcomes were superior in WS compared with SP [aggregate specimen length (46.5 vs. 34.5 mm, P<0.001), length of longest fragment (14 vs. 11 mm, P<0.001), and number of complete portal tracts (16 vs. 11.5, P<0.001)]. The overall ability to make a histological diagnosis was higher in WS (99% vs. 92%). Procedure length and AE did not differ between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of WS compared with SP for EUS-LB resulted in superior specimen yields. Total procedure time and adverse events were similar for both techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002168","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: The specimen quality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) for benign liver disease evaluation depends on the technique and type of needle used. Using a 19-gauge (19 g) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle with 3 actuations and wet suction (WS) or slow stylet pull is the current preferred practice. We conducted a randomized prospective multicenter trial to compare wet suction (WS) to slow stylet pull (SP) technique to compare histologic yields, length of procedure, and adverse events (AE).

Methods: This prospective randomized trial (NCT03245580) included patients undergoing EUS-LB for parenchymal biopsy at 6 centers in the United States in 2020-2021. A 19 g Franseen tip EUS needle was used for all procedures. For WS, the needle was flushed with saline, and a 20 ml suction syringe with 3 to 5 ml of fluid was used. For SP, a slow pullback of stylet was used. Pathologist was blinded for tissue interpretation.

Results: One hundred fifty-three patients across 6 tertiary centers were included, with 75 patients in the WS arm and 78 patients in the SP arm. Histologic outcomes were superior in WS compared with SP [aggregate specimen length (46.5 vs. 34.5 mm, P<0.001), length of longest fragment (14 vs. 11 mm, P<0.001), and number of complete portal tracts (16 vs. 11.5, P<0.001)]. The overall ability to make a histological diagnosis was higher in WS (99% vs. 92%). Procedure length and AE did not differ between groups.

Conclusions: The use of WS compared with SP for EUS-LB resulted in superior specimen yields. Total procedure time and adverse events were similar for both techniques.

良性肝脏EUS最佳核心研究(BLOCs):一项前瞻性随机多中心研究,评估湿吸与慢拉技术在EUS引导下的肝活检。
背景与目的:内镜下超声引导肝活检(EUS-LB)对良性肝病的评估,其标本质量取决于所使用的技术和针的类型。使用19号(19克)细针活检(FNB)针,带3个驱动和湿吸(WS)或缓慢的针刺是目前首选的做法。我们进行了一项随机前瞻性多中心试验,比较湿吸法(WS)和慢拔法(SP)技术的组织学产量、手术时间和不良事件(AE)。方法:这项前瞻性随机试验(NCT03245580)纳入了2020-2021年在美国6个中心接受EUS-LB实质活检的患者。所有手术均使用19 g Franseen尖端EUS针。对于WS,用生理盐水冲洗针头,并使用带有3至5毫升液体的20毫升吸式注射器。对于SP,使用了缓慢的回拉样式。病理学家盲法进行组织解释。结果:来自6个三级中心的153名患者被纳入,其中75名患者在WS组,78名患者在SP组。与SP相比,WS的组织学结果优于SP[总标本长度(46.5 vs 34.5 mm, p)]。结论:与SP相比,WS用于EUS-LB可获得更高的标本产量。两种技术的总手术时间和不良事件相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信