Akshintala, Venkata S.

AbstractBackground and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle.Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals.Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction.Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

AbstractBackground and AimThe primary aim was to validate the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) in a multicenter prospectively ascertained acute pancreatitis (AP) cohort. Second, we investigated the association of early PASS trajectories with disease severity and length of hospital stay (LOS).MethodsData were prospectively collected through the APPRENTICE consortium (2015–2018). AP severity was categorized based on revised Atlanta classification. Delta PASS (ΔPASS) was calculated by subtracting activity score from baseline value. PASS trajectories were compared between severity subsets. Subsequently, the cohort was subdivided into three LOS subgroups as short (S‐LOS): 2–3 days; intermediate (I‐LOS): 3–7 days; and long (L‐LOS): ≥7 days. The generalized estimating equations model was implemented to compare PASS trajectories.ResultsThere were 434 subjects analyzed including 322 (74%) mild, 86 (20%) moderately severe, and 26 (6%) severe AP. Severe AP subjects had the highest activity levels and the slowest rate of decline in activity (P = 0.039). Focusing on mild AP, L‐LOS subjects (34%) had 28 points per day slower decline; whereas, S‐LOS group (13%) showed 34 points per day sharper decrease compared with I‐LOS (53%; P < 0.001). We noticed an outlier subset with a median admission‐PASS of 466 compared with 140 in the rest. Morphine equivalent dose constituted 80% of the total PASS in the outliers (median morphine equivalent dose score = 392), compared with only 25% in normal‐range subjects (score = 33, P value < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlighted that PASS can quantify AP activity. Significant differences in PASS trajectories were found both in revised Atlanta classification severity and LOS groups, which can be harnessed in AP monitoring/management (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03075618).