High risk of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of side branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms

Ali A Siddiqui, Haroon Shahid, Apeksha Shah, Tanvi Khurana, William Huntington, Saad S Ghumman, David E Loren, Thomas E Kowalski, Sobia Laique, Umar Hayat, Mohamad A Eloubeidi, Ali A Siddiqui, Haroon Shahid, Apeksha Shah, Tanvi Khurana, William Huntington, Saad S Ghumman, David E Loren, Thomas E Kowalski, Sobia Laique, Umar Hayat, Mohamad A Eloubeidi

Abstract

Background and objectives: Data on the risk of acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions are limited. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency of acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts and solid lesions, and determine whether there was a difference in pancreatitis risk in patients with side branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (SB-IPMN).

Patients and methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts and solid lesions was performed. The primary outcome measure was development of acute pancreatitis after EUS-FNA. Factors associated with acute pancreatitis were examined by statistical analysis to determine independent predictors of acute pancreatitis. Statistical significance was determined at a P ≤ 0.05.

Results: We identified 186 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions and 557 with solid lesions in which EUS-FNA was performed. The median size of the cysts was 19 mm (range: 10-66 mm). There were 37 IPMNs, 33 mucinous cystic neoplasms, 58 serous cysts and 46 pseudocysts and 12 solid-cystic ductal carcinomas. The majority of patients (75%) with solid lesions were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. Patients with pancreatic cysts had a statistically greater frequency of developing pancreatitis after EUS-FNA when compared to those with solid lesions (2.6% vs. 0.36% respectively; P = 0.13). In patients with cysts, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups (with and without pancreatitis) with regard to a cyst location, size of the cyst, and number of needle passes or trainee involvement. Patients with SB-IPMN had a statistically higher frequency of pancreatitis after EUS-FNA compared to those with other cyst types (8% vs. 1.3% respectively; odds ratio = 6.4, 95% confidence intervals = 1.0-40.3, P = 0.05).

Discussion: Patients with SB-IPMN are at a higher risk of developing acute pancreatitis after a EUS-FNA. Alternative means of diagnosis such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatogram might be necessary to avoid risk of EUS-FNA.

Keywords: Acute pancreatitis; endosonography; fine-needle aspiration; intraductal papillary; mucinous neoplasm.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

References

    1. de Jong K, Nio CY, Mearadji B, et al. Disappointing interobserver agreement among radiologists for a classifying diagnosis of pancreatic cysts using magnetic resonance imaging. Pancreas. 2012;41:278–82.
    1. Farrell JJ, Fernández-del Castillo C. Pancreatic cystic neoplasms: Management and unanswered questions. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:1303–15.
    1. Kalra MK, Maher MM, Mueller PR, et al. State-of-the-art imaging of pancreatic neoplasms. Br J Radiol. 2003;76:857–65.
    1. Brugge WR, Lewandrowski K, Lee-Lewandrowski E, et al. Diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms: A report of the cooperative pancreatic cyst study. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:1330–6.
    1. Hong SK, Loren DE, Rogart JN, et al. Targeted cyst wall puncture and aspiration during EUS-FNA increases the diagnostic yield of premalignant and malignant pancreatic cysts. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:775–82.
    1. Khalid A, Zahid M, Finkelstein SD, et al. Pancreatic cyst fluid DNA analysis in evaluating pancreatic cysts: A report of the PANDA study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:1095–102.
    1. Tanaka M, Fernández-del Castillo C, et al. International consensus guidelines 2012 for the management of IPMN and MCN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2012;12:183–97.
    1. Eloubeidi MA, Gress FG, Savides TJ, et al. Acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: A pooled analysis from EUS centers in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:385–9.
    1. Gress F, Michael H, Gelrud D, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of the pancreas: Evaluation of pancreatitis as a complication. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:864–7.
    1. Katanuma A, Maguchi H, Yane K, et al. Factors predictive of adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic solid lesions. Dig Dis Sci. 2013;58:2093–9.
    1. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis – 2012: Revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2013;62:102–11.
    1. Lee LS, Saltzman JR, Bounds BC, et al. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: A retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005
    1. O’Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotçarena R, et al. Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:470–4.
    1. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:139–47.
    1. Coté GA, Hovis CE, Kohlmeier C, et al. Training in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: Safety and diagnostic yield of attending supervised, trainee-directed FNA from the onset of training. Diagn Ther Endosc 2011. 2011 378540.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir