A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3145
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

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. | LitMetric

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.).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003389DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

wet suction
24
suction technique
20
dry suction
16
diagnostic accuracy
16
suction
10
suction versus
8
versus wet
8
solid pancreatic
8
multicenter randomized
8
randomized controlled
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!