Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan
{"title":"5毫升和10毫升负压与湿抽吸技术用于EUS-FNA实体病变的比较:单中心随机对照试验。","authors":"Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"97-103"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yuchun Zhu, Yang Su, Peng Yang, Jiaojun Li, Tai Yu, Yi Wang, Xi Zhou, Ming Zhao, Xiaobin Sun, Jing Shan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"97-103\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"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.0000000000001982\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001982","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
摘要
背景和目的:湿抽吸技术可选择的负压仍不确定。目的是通过湿抽吸技术的 5 mL 和 10 mL 负压,研究实体病变的取样质量和诊断准确性:这是一项单中心、交叉、随机对照试验,采用随机取样技术。共有 160 名因实性病变连续接受 EUS-FNA 治疗的患者按 1:1 的比例随机分为两组,即 5 mL 和 10 mL 负压湿抽吸组。主要结果是比较两组的样本质量。次要结果是比较实体病变的组织学和细胞学诊断准确性:对 156 例病变中的胰腺(129 例)和非胰腺(27 例)病变进行了检查。两组样本的质量(包括细胞度、充分性、完整性和血液污染)相当。然而,在亚组分析中,我们发现 19G FNA 5 mL 组比 10 mL 组标本的完整性更高(100% 对 82.9%,P=0.025)。相比之下,22G FNA 亚组的这一优势并不显著。5毫升组和10毫升组的组织学准确率(87.82% vs. 87.18%,P=1.000)和细胞学准确率(78.85% vs. 80.77%,P=0.778)无统计学意义:结论:使用湿抽吸技术时,5 mL 和 10 mL 负压样本质量和诊断准确性相当。结论:使用湿抽吸技术时,5 mL 和 10 mL 负压可提供同等的样本质量和诊断准确性,但 5 mL 负压比 10 mL 负压可获得更好的样本质量。
Comparation of 5 ml and 10 ml Negative Pressures with Wet-suction Techniques for EUS-FNA of Solid Lesions: A Single-center Randomized Controlled Trial.
Background and objectives: The negative pressure selectable for the wet-suction technique remains uncertain. The aim was to investigate the quality of sampling and diagnostic accuracy with solid lesions by 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure with wet-suction techniques.
Methods: This is a single-center, crossover, randomized controlled trial conducted with a random sampling technique. In all, 160 patients consecutively undergoing EUS-FNA for solid lesions were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 into 2 groups, the 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure wet-suction group. The main outcome was to compare the sample quality between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to compare the histologic and cytologic diagnostic accuracy of solid lesions.
Results: Pancreatic (n=129) and nonpancreatic (n=27) lesions from 156 lesions were examined. The sample quality concluding cellularity, adequacy, integrity, and blood contamination were comparable between the 2 groups. However, in subgroup analysis, we found 19G FNA provided more integrity of specimen in 5 mL than in 10 mL group (100% vs. 82.9%, P =0.025). In contrast, this benefit was not noteworthy in the 22G FNA subgroup. And there was no statistically significant in histologic (87.82% vs. 87.18%, P =1.000) and cytologic (78.85% vs. 80.77%, P =0.778) accuracy between 5 mL and 10 mL groups.
Conclusion: When using the wet-suction technique, 5 mL and 10 mL negative pressure offer equivalent sample quality and diagnostic accuracy. However, the 19G FNA can obtain better sample quality with 5 mL negative pressure than 10 mL negative pressure.
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.