Mapping international practice patterns in EUS-guided tissue sampling: outcome of a global survey

• Main Authors: Priscilla A. van Riet, Djuna L. Cahen, Jan-Werner Poley, Marco J. Bruno
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2016-03-01
• Series: Endoscopy International Open
• Online Access: http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0042-101023
• ISSN: 2364-3722; 2196-9736

Background and study aims: Although Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is widely used, the optimal sampling strategy remains subject of debate. We evaluated practice patterns within the international endosonographic community. Patients and methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 400 endosonographers from the United States, Europe, and Asia. Results: A total of 186 (47 %) endosonographers participated: United States 54 (29 %), Europe 85 (46 %), and Asia 47 (25 %). European (75 %) and Asian (84 %) respondents routinely check coagulation status, whereas US respondents only check on indication (64 %, P = 0.007). While propofol sedation is standard in the United States (83 %), conscious sedation is still widely used in Europe (52 %) and Asia (84 %, P < 0.001). Overall, the 22-gauge needle is most commonly used (52 %). For fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions, 22-gauge (45 %) and 25-gauge (49 %) needles are used equally. For fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid masses, the 25-gauge device is less favored than the 22-gauge FNA device (49 % versus 21 %). The 19-gauge needle is generally used for FNB of submucosal masses (62 %). Rapid on-site pathological evaluation (ROSE) is utilized more often by US (98 %) than by European and Asian respondents (51 %, P < 0.001). Cytolyt (52 %), formalin (15 %) and alcohol (15 %) are used for FNA specimen preservation in the United States and Europe, while saline (27 %) and alcohol (38 %) are widely used in Asia (P < 0.001). Conclusions: EUS-guided tissue sampling practices vary substantially within the international endosonographic community and differ considerably from recommendations expressed in guidelines. Because the clinical relevance of these variations is largely unknown, the outcome of this survey suggests a need for further studies.