Samanta, Jayanta

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling includes the techniques of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB), and both procedures have revolutionized specimen collection from the gastrointestinal tract, especially from remote/inaccessible organs. EUS-FNB has replaced FNA as the procedure of choice for tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) across various society guidelines. FNB specimens provide a larger histological tissue core (preserving tissue architecture) with fewer needle passes, and this is extremely relevant in today’s era of precision and personalized molecular medicine. Innovations in needle tip design are constantly under development to maximize diagnostic accuracy by enhancing histological sampling capabilities. But, apart from the basic framework of the needle, various other factors play a role that influence diagnostic outcomes, namely, sampling techniques (fanning, aspiration or suction, and number of passes), collection methods, on-site evaluation (rapid, macroscopic, or visual), and specimen processing. The choice taken depends strongly on the endoscopist’s preference, available resources at the disposal, and procedure objectives. Hence, in this review, we explicate in detail the concepts and available literature at our disposal on the topic of EUS-guided pancreatic tissue sampling to best guide any practicing gastroenterologist/endoscopist in a not-to-ideal set-up, which EUS-guided tissue acquisition technique is the “best” for their case to augment their diagnostic outcomes.

Abstract Background and Objectives Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS–guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 % statistics. Results Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1–95.2; I 2 = 0). With combination EUS–glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%–98.5%; I 2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%–12.4%; I 2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%–95.2%; I 2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%–99.1%; I 2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%–95.1%; I 2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%–91.2%; I 2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%–90.6%; I 2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%–96.7%; I 2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%–24.3%; I 2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%–39.5%; I 2 = 66), respectively. Conclusion Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.