Randomized trial compares diagnostic accuracy of 19 G Flex and 22 G needles in pancreatic sampling, showing significant differences.
Background The aim of this prospective multicenter study was to compare a flexible 19 G needle with nitinol shaft (19 G Flex) with a standard 22 G needle for transduodenal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of pancreatic head tumors. Methods Patients with pancreatic head tumors requiring tissue diagnosis were randomized into two arms: puncture with either a 19 G Flex needle or a 22 G needle. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy for malignancy. The secondary end points were ergonomic scores, sample cytohistological quality, and complications. A 6-month follow-up was performed. Results 125 patients were randomized and 122 were analyzed: 59 patients in the 19 G Flex arm and 63 patients in the 22 G arm. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 111 patients and benign condition in 11. In intention-to-treat analysis, the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of the 19 G Flex and 22 G needles was 69.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 56.1 % – 80.8 %) vs. 87.3 % (95 %CI 76.5 % – 94.4 %), respectively (P = 0.02). In per-protocol analysis excluding eight technical failures in the 19 G Flex group, the diagnostic accuracy of the 19 G Flex and 22 G needles was not statistically different: 80.4 % (95 %CI 66.9 % – 90.2 %) vs. 87.3 % (95 %CI 76.5 % – 94.4 %; P = 0.12). Technical success was higher in the 22 G arm than in the 19 G Flex arm: 100 % (95 %CI 94.3 % – 100 %) vs. 86.4 % (95 %CI 75.0 % – 94.0 %), respectively (P = 0.003). Transduodenal EUS-guided sampling was more difficult with the 19 G Flex (odds ratio 0.68, 95 %CI 0.47 – 0.97). Conclusion The 19 G Flex needle was inferior to a standard 22 G needle in diagnosing pancreatic head cancer and more difficult to use in the transduodenal approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laquière et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: