Search

Background EUS has less than optimal interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. The newly developed Rosemont consensus scoring system includes weighted criteria and stricter definitions for individual features. Objective The primary aim was to compare the interobserver agreement of standard and Rosemont scoring. Setting Multiple tertiary-care institutions. Intervention Fifty EUS videos were interpreted by 14 experts. Each expert interpreted the videos on two occasions: First, the videos were read by using standard scoring (9 criteria). Second, after viewing a presentation of the Rosemont classification, the same experts re-read the videos by using Rosemont scoring. Main Outcome Measurements Fleiss' kappa (K) statistics are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The interobserver agreement was "substantial" (K = 0.65 [95% CI, 0.52-0.77]) for Rosemont scoring and "moderate" (K = 0.54 [95% CI, 0.44-0.66]) for standard scoring; however, the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.12). Limitations The sample size does not allow detection of differences in K of Conclusion Use of the Rosemont classification did not significantly increase interobserver agreement for EUS diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis compared with standard scoring.

Background EUS-FNA has limitations in cancer diagnosis/staging. New contrast agents, transducers, and processors have improved the potential of contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH)–EUS. Objective To determine optimal settings and preliminary accuracy of CEH-EUS by using a second-generation perflutren lipid microsphere contrast agent and a prototype linear echoendoscope. Design Prospective, comparative, pilot study. Setting Tertiary-care medical center. Patients This study involved patients with esophageal/pancreatic/liver tumors or adenopathy. Intervention Contrast agent was injected (10 μL/kg intravenously in 1-2 doses), and the mechanical index was optimized over 5 cases (0.3). Intermittent/continuous imaging was used with extended pure harmonic detection. Main Outcome Measurements Before-contrast and after-contrast predictions of neoplasia (5-point Likert scale). The reference standard was positive tissue or 6-month follow-up. Perfusion factors (sequence, pattern, washout) were noted, and phases were video recorded (arterial, venous, and postvenous). Results Thirty sites (7 nodes and 16 pancreatic and 7 nonpancreatic masses) were imaged in 21 patients; 21 of 30 had FNA, and 5 had surgery. Four cases (13.3%) were rated as undecided/indeterminate with EUS (vs 1 [3.3%] with CEH-EUS; P = .35). Twenty-four cases with confirmed diagnoses (12 malignant and 12 benign) were used for test performance: positive/negative predictive values for CEH-EUS were 80.0% (95% confidence interval, 51.9%-95.7%)/100.0% (95% confidence interval, 63.0%-100.0%) versus 84.6%/100.0% for EUS. Accuracies, counting "undecided" (1 in CEH-EUS and 4 in EUS) as incorrect, were 83.3% and 79.2%. In 2 cases, management would change significantly: (1) liver hemangioma, avoiding FNA; and (2) mediastinal "cyst" confirmed as solid. Limitations Small sample. Tissue not always available. Conclusion CEH-EUS adds minimal imaging time and is accurate, with small improvement over EUS. Added information in vascular and cystic lesions can potentially change management.

Lower reimbursements for endoscopic procedures and increasing demand for screening endoscopy over the past decade have spurred efforts to increase efficiency in the performance of endoscopic procedures. Two dichotomous approaches have emerged: (1) unsedated endoscopy and (2) propofol sedation. The aim was to determine national practice patterns of unsedated endoscopy and propofol sedation, and to assess endoscopists' attitudes toward unsedated screening with an electronic survey.A short survey was developed and then was converted to a Web-based format. All national members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) were invited via electronic mail (e-mail) to participate. Survey data were collected electronically.Two e-mails elicited responses to the Web survey from 18% (724) of national ASGE members contacted, within 2 weeks. Of the respondents, 45% do not routinely offer unsedated EGD and colonoscopy, and only 15% of those respondents plan to incorporate unsedated endoscopy into their practice in the next year. Of the 55% who currently perform unsedated endoscopy, 85% do no more than 25 unsedated procedures per year. Lack of patient acceptance was the most common reason cited for not offering unsedated endoscopy. Most endoscopists felt that the availability of unsedated esophagoscopy or colonoscopy would not significantly increase screening for Barrett's esophagus or colonic polyps/colorectal cancer, respectively. Routine use of propofol sedation for EGD, colonoscopy, and ERCP/EUS was reported by 19%, 22%, and 19%, respectively. Community practitioners were more likely to use propofol than those at academic centers (p0.0002 for all). Of those not currently using propofol, 43% plan to incorporate it into their practice within the next year. Over 70% of respondents would themselves choose to be sedated for routine endoscopic procedures.Electronic surveys allow for rapid distribution and data collection but suffer from a limited response rate. The survey suggests that unsedated endoscopy has limited acceptance in the United States, and, without a major intervention that affects endoscopists' attitudes, its use is not likely to increase significantly. Unsedated endoscopy will not have a great impact on endoscopic screening. In contrast, propofol sedation has already gained acceptance in the community, and the routine use of propofol in endoscopy units will likely increase in the future.