RESUMO

BACKGROUND: • The ERCP even when done by experienced professionals, fails in 10% of cases. BACKGROUND: • Until the development of the EUS-BD, PTBD had a role as a rescue therapy, despite a high rate of adverse events. BACKGROUND: • The EUS-BD is safe and has similar efficacy, when compared to PTBD and should be performed immediately after ERCP failure. BACKGROUND: • A doctor with skills in both methods (ERCP/EUS) is needed to determine the best EUS-guided therapeutic option.

Assuntos

RESUMO

•In pancreatic neoplasms the EUS plays a key role in the management. •During the pandemic period, lockdown measures prevented patients with comorbidities from performing EUS. •The D-EUS decreased during COVID-19, while I-EUS increased and EUS-TA was the most commonly I-EUS procedure performed, with no increase in adverse events. •Despite the moderate impact of the pandemic period in endoscopic services around the world, EUS-TA of solid and cystic tumors of the pancreas was the main indication. Background - Reports of the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic period/2020 on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are scarce. Objective - We analyzed the impact of the pandemic period/2020 on the demographics, indications, and number of diagnostic EUS (D-EUS) and interventional EUS (I-EUS) procedures performed in a high-volume endoscopy unit compared with the previous non-pandemic period/2019. Methods - We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients undergoing D-EUS or I-EUS from March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020 (non-pandemic period/2019) and from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021 (pandemic period/2020). Data compared between the study periods included sex, age, comorbidities, EUS findings and diagnosis, need for interventional procedures during EUS, and adverse events (AEs). Results were significant at P<0.05. Results - EUS procedures decreased from 475 in the non-pandemic period/2019 to 289 in the pandemic period/2020, accounting for a 39% reduction. In non-pandemic period/2019, 388 (81.7%) D-EUS and 88 (18.5%) I-EUS were performed, against 206 (71.3%) D-EUS and 83 (28.7%) I-EUS in pandemic period/2020 (P=0.001). Only 5/289 (1.7%) patients had COVID-19. Fewer patients with comorbidities underwent EUS during pandemic period/2020 due to lockdown measures (P<0.001). D-EUS decreased, whereas I-EUS increased (P<0.001). EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) was the most common I-EUS, performed in 83/289 (28.7%) patients in pandemic period/2020, against 88/475 (18.5%) in non-pandemic period/2019 (P=0.001). AEs did not differ significantly between the study periods. Conclusion - Pandemic Period/2020 had a moderate impact on reducing EUS procedures due to the risks involved. Although I-EUS increased, EUS-related AEs did not. Solid and cystic pancreatic tumors remained a major indication for EUS-TA even during the pandemic period/2020.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: Reports of the impact of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic period/2020 on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) are scarce. Objective: We analyzed the impact of the pandemic period/2020 on the demographics, indications, and number of diagnostic EUS (D-EUS) and interventional EUS (I-EUS) procedures performed in a high-volume endoscopy unit compared with the previous non-pandemic period/2019. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients undergoing D-EUS or I-EUS from March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020 (non-pandemic period/2019) and from March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021 (pandemic period/2020). Data compared between the study periods included sex, age, comorbidities, EUS findings and diagnosis, need for interventional procedures during EUS, and adverse events (AEs). Results were significant at P<0.05. Results: EUS procedures decreased from 475 in the non-pandemic period/2019 to 289 in the pandemic period/2020, accounting for a 39% reduction. In non-pandemic period/2019, 388 (81.7%) D-EUS and 88 (18.5%) I-EUS were performed, against 206 (71.3%) D-EUS and 83 (28.7%) I-EUS in pandemic period/2020 (P=0.001). Only 5/289 (1.7%) patients had COVID-19. Fewer patients with comorbidities underwent EUS during pandemic period/2020 due to lockdown measures (P<0.001). D-EUS decreased, whereas I-EUS increased (P<0.001). EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) was the most common I-EUS, performed in 83/289 (28.7%) patients in pandemic period/2020, against 88/475 (18.5%) in non-pandemic period/2019 (P=0.001). AEs did not differ significantly between the study periods. Conclusion: Pandemic Period/2020 had a moderate impact on reducing EUS procedures due to the risks involved. Although I-EUS increased, EUS-related AEs did not. Solid and cystic pancreatic tumors remained a major indication for EUS-TA even during the pandemic period/2020.

RESUMO Contexto: Os dados sobre o impacto da pandemia de COVID-19 2020 na ultrassonografia endoscópica (EUS) são escassos. Objetivo: Analisamos o impacto do período pandêmico/2020 na demografia, indicações e número das EUS diagnósticas (D-EUS) e intervencionistas EUS (I-EUS) realizados em uma unidade de endoscopia de alto volume e os comparamos com o período imediatamente anterior não-pandêmico/2019. Métodos: Revisamos retrospectivamente os prontuários de todos os pacientes submetidos a D-EUS ou I-EUS de 1 de março de 2019 a 29 de fevereiro de 2020 (período não-pandêmico/2019) e de 1º de março de 2020 a 28 de fevereiro de 2021 (período da pandemia/2020). Comparamos os dados entre os períodos do estudo incluímos o sexo, idade, comorbidades, achados e diagnóstico da EUS, necessidade de procedimentos intervencionistas durante a EUS e a ocorrência de eventos adversos (EAs). Os resultados foram significativos com P<0,05. Resultados: O número de ecoendoscopias diminuíram de 475 no período não-pandêmico/2019 para 289 no período pandêmico/2020, representando uma redução de 39%. No período não-pandêmico/2019 e pandêmico/2020 foram realizados 388 (81,7%) D-EUS e 88 (18,5%) I-EUS, contra 206 (71,3%) D-EUS e 83 (28,7%) I-EUS, respectivamente (P=0,001). Apenas 5/289 (1,7%) pacientes tinham COVID-19. Menos pacientes com comorbidades realizaram EUS durante o período pandêmico/2020 devido as medidas de bloqueio (P<0,001). D-EUS diminuiu, enquanto I-EUS aumentou (P<0,001). A EUS associada a aquisição tecidual (EUS-AT) foi a I-EUS mais comum, realizada em 83/289 (28,7%) pacientes no período pandêmico/2020, versus 88/475 (18,5%) no período não-pandêmico/2019 (P=0,001). Os EAs não diferiram significativamente entre os períodos do estudo. Conclusão: O período da pandemia/2020 teve impacto moderado na redução da EUS devido aos riscos envolvidos. Embora o I-EUS tenha aumentado, os EAs relacionados ao EUS não aumentaram. Os tumores pancreáticos sólidos e císticos permaneceram como uma das principais indicações para EUS-AT mesmo durante o período pandêmico/2020.

RESUMO

•Giant and solitary polyps evolve with anemia. •EUS is an important tool for stage and manage this disease. •Endoscopic treatment is the best treatment choice. •Supplementary video available on this case report.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography is used in the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases in adults. In children, its use is limited due to a lack of available expertise. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnostic and therapeutic strategy changes in pediatric patients. METHODS: Over ten years, this study retrospectively and consecutively analyzed children aged ≤18 years who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography because of inconclusive imaging or laboratory tests. The indications, results, occurrence of adverse events, and clinical impact of the procedures were analyzed. The clinical impact was classified as major (when the findings led to changes in diagnosis and management), minor (change in diagnosis but not in management), or none (no change in diagnosis or management). RESULTS: Overall, 107 children [77 (72%) of whom were female; mean age: 11.7 ± 4 years] underwent upper [102 (95.3%)] and lower [5 (4.7%)] endoscopic ultrasonography; 64 (58%) patients underwent diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography, and 43 (42%) underwent interventional endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopic ultrasonography was used to investigate pancreaticobiliary, gastric, rectal, esophageal, duodenal, and mediastinal diseases in 81 (76%), 14 (13%), 5 (4.6%), 3 (2.8%), 2 (1.8%), and 2 (1.8%) patients, respectively. The clinical impact was significant in 81% of the children. Major and no clinical impact on pancreaticobiliary, gastrointestinal diseases, and mediastinal masses occurred in 50 (62%) and 13 (16%), 13 (54%) and 9 (37%), and 2 (100%) and 0 (0%) of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study evaluated the impact of diagnostic and interventional endoscopic ultrasonography in pediatric patients. When clinically and appropriately indicated, these procedures are safe and effective diagnostic or therapeutic interventions in pediatric patients with gastrointestinal or pancreaticobiliary disorders.

Assuntos

RESUMO

ABSTRACT Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography is used in the diagnosis and treatment of digestive diseases in adults. In children, its use is limited due to a lack of available expertise. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasonography on diagnostic and therapeutic strategy changes in pediatric patients. Methods: Over ten years, this study retrospectively and consecutively analyzed children aged ≤18 years who underwent endoscopic ultrasonography because of inconclusive imaging or laboratory tests. The indications, results, occurrence of adverse events, and clinical impact of the procedures were analyzed. The clinical impact was classified as major (when the findings led to changes in diagnosis and management), minor (change in diagnosis but not in management), or none (no change in diagnosis or management). Results: Overall, 107 children [77 (72%) of whom were female; mean age: 11.7 ± 4 years] underwent upper [102 (95.3%)] and lower [5 (4.7%)] endoscopic ultrasonography; 64 (58%) patients underwent diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography, and 43 (42%) underwent interventional endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopic ultrasonography was used to investigate pancreaticobiliary, gastric, rectal, esophageal, duodenal, and mediastinal diseases in 81 (76%), 14 (13%), 5 (4.6%), 3 (2.8%), 2 (1.8%), and 2 (1.8%) patients, respectively. The clinical impact was significant in 81% of the children. Major and no clinical impact on pancreaticobiliary, gastrointestinal diseases, and mediastinal masses occurred in 50 (62%) and 13 (16%), 13 (54%) and 9 (37%), and 2 (100%) and 0 (0%) of the patients, respectively. Conclusion: This study evaluated the impact of diagnostic and interventional endoscopic ultrasonography in pediatric patients. When clinically and appropriately indicated, these procedures are safe and effective diagnostic or therapeutic interventions in pediatric patients with gastrointestinal or pancreaticobiliary disorders.

RESUMO Contexto: A ecoendoscopia (EUS) faz parte da prática clínica diária no diagnóstico e tratamento de doenças digestivas em adultos, no entanto, seu uso em crianças é limitado. Objetivo: O objetivo do trabalho foi avaliar o impacto clínico da ecoendoscopia diagnóstica (EUS-D) e ecoendoscopia intervencionista (EUS-I) na população pediátrica. Métodos: Por um período de 10 anos, analisamos retrospectivamente os prontuários de 107 crianças (≤18 anos) submetidas à ecoendoscopia alta [102 (95.3%)] e ecoendoscopia baixa [5 (4.7%)] que tiveram teste de imagem ou laboratorial inconclusivos. O impacto clínico foi classificado como forte (quando mudou o diagnóstico e a terapêutica), fraco (modificou o diagnóstico, mas não o manejo) e ausente (não houve mudança nem do diagnóstico e nem no manejo). Resultados: 107 meninas (72%) e 30 meninos (28%), média de idade 11.7±4 anos (5-18), foram submetidas à ecoendoscopia. 64 (58%) à EUS-D e 43 (42%) à EUS-I [EUS-FNA em 33 (77%) e 10 (33%) a drenagens (pseudocisto (5), walled off necrosis (2), perirectal abscesso (1)) e neurólise do plexo celíaco (2). O sucesso técnico, clínico e a taxa de efeitos adversos para a EUS-I foram de 100%, 90% e 0%, respectivamente. A via biliopancreática foi estudada em 81 (76%), estômago 14 (13%), reto 5 (4.6%), esôfago 3 (2.8%), duodeno 2 (1.8%) e mediastino 2 (1.8%) casos. O impacto clínico total foi de 81%. O impacto clínico foi forte e fraco para a via biliopancreática (81), gastrointestinal (24) e mediastinal (2) em 62% e 16%, 54% e 37% e 100% e 0%, respectivamente. A sensibilidade, especificidade e acurácia da EUS-FNA com microhistologia foi de 76.2%, 100% e 84.8%, respectivamente. Conclusão: Os autores concluem que a EUS-D e a EUS-I são efetivas e seguras quando indicadas corretamente para as doenças digestivas em crianças. A EUS-FNA tem elevada acurácia e pode esclarecer a maioria dos casos duvidosos, determinando o diagnóstico preciso das enfermidades digestivas. O impacto clínico foi grande em relação ao diagnóstico e a mudança do tipo de tratamento na maioria das crianças.

Assuntos