Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in transluminal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is commonly performed with oblique-viewing echoendoscopes. However, accessing the PFC under an oblique angle can make drainage difficult. These difficulties might be overcome by using a forward-viewing echoendoscope.

OBJECTIVE: To compare endoscopic PFC drainage with an oblique-viewing versus a forward-viewing echoendoscope with emphasis on ease of endoscopic drainage.

DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING: Four tertiary-care referral centers.

PATIENTS: This study involved 58 patients with PFCs.

INTERVENTION: Patients with PFCs (≥ 6 cm) in whom drainage was indicated were randomized to receive EUS-guided drainage with a forward-viewing echoendoscope or an oblique-viewing echoendoscope. In cases of failed drainage, patients were crossed over to the other study arm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Ease of EUS-guided drainage measured by procedure time. Secondary endpoints included technical success, EUS endoscope preference, clinical success, and adverse events.

RESULTS: Fifty-eight consecutive patients underwent randomization, of whom 52 were available for primary endpoint analysis. All 26 EUS-guided procedures done with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope and 24 of the 26 procedures done with the forward-viewing echoendoscope were technically successful. Mean (± standard deviation) procedure time was 24:55 ± 9:58 minutes in the forward-viewing echoendoscope group and 27:04 ± 9:58 minutes in the oblique-viewing echoendoscope group (P = .44). Median overall procedure ease was graded as equal (easy) in both groups. Drainage-related adverse events occurred in 2 patients (8%) in the forward-viewing echoendoscope group versus none in the oblique-viewing echoendoscope group (P = .56). Overall clinical success was achieved in 82% of patients (95% confidence interval, 69%-91%).

LIMITATIONS: Derived main outcome parameter and highly specialized endoscopists in tertiary-care referral centers.

CONCLUSION: This multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing the performance of oblique-viewing echoendoscopes and forward-viewing echoendoscopes in draining PFCs did not show a difference in ease of EUS-guided drainage or procedure safety and efficacy between the forward-viewing echoendoscope and the oblique-viewing echoendoscope. Clinical success was achieved in 82% of patients.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app