An international, multi-institution survey of the use of EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Currently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field. METHODS: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. RESULTS: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.

Practice guidelines for endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of guideline was to provide clear and relevant consensus statements to form a practical guideline for clinicians on the indications, optimal technique, safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN). METHODS: Six important clinical questions were determined regarding EUS-CPN. Following a detailed literature review, 6 statements were proposed attempting to answer those questions. A group of expert endosonographers convened in Chicago, United States (May 2016), where the statements were presented and feedback provided. Subsequently a consensus group of 35 expert endosonographers voted based on their individual level of agreement. A strong recommendation required 80% voter agreement. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria were used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Eighty percent agreement was reached on 5 of 6 consensus statements, 79.4% agreement was reached on the remaining one. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CPN is efficacious, should be integrated into the management of pancreas cancer pain, and can be considered early at the time of diagnosis of inoperable disease. Techniques may still vary based on operator experience. Serious complications exist, but are rare.

A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrates to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: Acute pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent data suggest that indomethacin can reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk individuals. However, whether the combination of indomethacin and sublingual nitrates is superior to indomethacin alone is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rectally administered indomethacin plus sublingual nitrate compared with indomethacin alone to prevent PEP. METHODS: During a 17-month period, all eligible patients who underwent ERCP were enrolled in this study. We excluded patients who had undergone a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy. In a double-blind controlled randomized trial, patients received a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus 5 mg of sublingual nitrate (group A), or a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus sublingual placebo (group B), before ERCP. Serum amylase levels and clinically pertinent evaluations were measured in all patients after ERCP. RESULTS: Of the 300 enrolled patients, 150 received indomethacin plus nitrate. Thirty-three patients developed pancreatitis: 10 (6.7%) in group A and 23 (15.3%) in group B (P=0.016, risk ratio=0.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.18-0.86). More than 80% of the patients were at high risk of developing pancreatitis after ERCP. Absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat for the prevention of PEP were 8.6% (95% CI: 4.7-14.5), 56.2% (95% CI: 50.6-60.8), and 12 (95% CI: 7-22), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrate given before ERCP was significantly more likely to reduce the incidence of PEP than indomethacin suppository alone. Multicenter trials to confirm these promising findings are needed.