Guideline
Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.02.018Get rights and content

Section snippets

Mechanical and optical properties of echoendoscopes

The 2 main types of echoendoscopes are radial scanning and curvilinear-array (CLA) devices. Radial scanning devices contain either a rotating mechanical US transducer or a wraparound, nonrotating electronic US transducer that generates a 360-degree radial US image perpendicular to the long axis of the endoscope. CLA (sometimes referred to as linear array) echoendoscopes produce a US image in a single plane parallel to the long axis of the endoscope via an electronic US transducer. EUS-FNA is

Perforation

Upper GI endoscopy with a standard upper endoscope carries a risk of perforation of 0.03%.1, 5 Cervical intubation with EUS endoscopes is performed blindly, and the longer, more rigid tip has raised concern of cervical esophageal perforation, particularly in patients with Zenker's diverticulum. A prospective study of 4894 patients undergoing upper EUS found a cervical esophageal perforation rate of 0.06% (3 patients, CLA instrument used in all).6 All patients were treated surgically and

EUS with FNA

FNA is commonly performed to obtain tissue from masses or lymph nodes, as well as to aspirate the contents of cystic structures (eg, pancreatic cysts) for analysis. In addition, the same needles used to perform FNA can also be used to inject alcohol, corticosteroids, or anesthetic agents to achieve celiac plexus blockade (CPB) or celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN). EUS-FNA needles are available in 19-, 22-, and 25-gauge sizes. Core biopsy needles are available to obtain biopsy specimens for

Infectious adverse events

Bacteremia is a rare occurrence after diagnostic endoscopy. Several early studies showed an incidence rate of approximately 0% to 8% (excluding patients with biliary obstruction at ERCP).27, 28, 29 The frequency of bacteremia as an adverse event of EUS and EUS-FNA has been prospectively studied in 4 separate trials, 1 of which included only rectal EUS.30, 31, 32, 33

These studies, which collectively include more than 350 patients, did not find a statistically significant increase in the rate of

Pancreatitis

The risk of iatrogenic pancreatitis as a result of EUS-FNA arises in patients undergoing FNA of pancreatic masses, cysts, or the pancreatic duct. All of these procedures involve direct passage of the needle through pancreatic tissue. Reported rates of pancreatitis associated with pancreatic EUS-FNA range from 0% to 2%.34, 47, 48, 49, 50 The risk of pancreatitis does not appear to be influenced by cystic versus solid masses or by the needle gauge used. One study evaluated pancreatitis

Hemorrhage

Hemorrhage as an adverse event of EUS-FNA has been described in only a limited fashion. One study reported 2 episodes of clinically significant bleeding after EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions, one of which resulted in death.48 Mild intraluminal bleeding has been reported to occur in as many as 4% of cases.35 One study specifically evaluated extraluminal hemorrhage in patients undergoing EUS-FNA over a 13-month period.52 Three cases of extraluminal hemorrhage occurred among 227 patients for an

Bile peritonitis

Bile peritonitis is a rare adverse event of EUS-FNA. There is one report of bile peritonitis after EUS-FNA of a pancreatic-head mass requiring laparotomy.54 During a study of the use of EUS-FNA to obtain bile directly from the gallbladder in an attempt to identify patients with microlithiasis, bile peritonitis developed in 2 of the first 3 patients, resulting in termination of the study.55 EUS-FNA of solid gallbladder masses was shown to be safe in 2 small case series.56, 57

Malignant seeding

EUS-FNA frequently involves a needle advanced from the lumen across the GI tract into adjacent malignant tissue. There are 3 case reports of tumor seeding along an FNA needle path; 1 each of pancreatic cancer, melanoma (both transgastric), and malignant mediastinal lymphadenopathy (transesophageal).

EUS with CPB/CPN

EUS can be used to perform CPB or CPN as a means of achieving analgesia. The technique involves the delivery of corticosteroids (in blockade) or absolute alcohol (in neurolysis) plus a local anesthetic into the celiac plexus via EUS-guided injection with an FNA needle. Adverse events associated with this procedure include transient diarrhea (4%-15%), transient orthostasis (1%), transient increases in pain (9%), and abscess formation.39, 40 Patients should receive adequate intravenous hydration

EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic access

EUS-guided pancreaticobiliary access is a relatively new technique to access biliary and pancreatic ducts via EUS-guided needle puncture through the gastric or duodenal wall. The technique was developed as a salvage therapy when conventional ERCP fails to achieve pancreaticobiliary access, often because of altered anatomy. Small published series report success rates of 50% to 85%, with adverse event rates ranging from 10% to 16%.62, 63

Conclusions

Adverse events are inherent in the performance of EUS and EUS-FNA. As these procedures assume larger roles in the management of GI and non-GI disorders, the potential for adverse events will likely increase. Knowledge of potential adverse events secondary to EUS and EUS-FNA, their expected frequency, and their associated risk factors may help to minimize their occurrence. Endoscopists are expected to carefully select patients for the appropriate intervention, be familiar with the planned

Disclosure

The following author disclosed a financial relationship relevant to this publication: Dr Fisher, consultant to Epigenomics, Inc; Dr Hwang, consultant to U.S. Endoscopy and speaker for Novartis; Dr Pasha, research support from Capervision. The other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (63)

  • M.B. Wallace et al.

    Dilation of malignant esophageal stenosis to allow EUS guided fine-needle aspiration: safety and effect on patient management

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2000)
  • S. Mallery et al.

    Increased rate of complete EUS staging of patients with esophageal cancer using the nonoptical, wire-guided echoendoscope

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (1999)
  • P. Fockens et al.

    Endosonography of stenotic esophageal carcinomas: preliminary experience with an ultra-thin, balloon-fitted ultrasound probe in four patients

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (1994)
  • A. Chak et al.

    Clinical applications of a new through-the-scope ultrasound probe: prospective comparison with an ultrasound endoscope

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (1997)
  • M.J. Wiersema et al.

    Initial experience with EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies of perigastric organs

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2002)
  • M.J. Levy et al.

    Preliminary experience with an EUS-guided trucut biopsy needle compared with EUS-guided FNA

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2003)
  • A. Larghi et al.

    EUS-guided trucut needle biopsies in patients with solid pancreatic masses: a prospective study

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2004)
  • S.M. Wildi et al.

    Diagnosis of benign cysts of the mediastinum: the role and risks of EUS and FNA

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2003)
  • V.A. Botoman et al.

    Bacteremia with gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (1986)
  • M. Barawi et al.

    A prospective evaluation of the incidence of bacteremia associated with EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2001)
  • M.J. Levy et al.

    Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2003)
  • J. Janssen et al.

    Frequency of bacteremia after linear EUS of the upper GI tract with and without FNA

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2004)
  • M.J. Levy et al.

    Prospective study of bacteremia and complications With EUS FNA of rectal and perirectal lesions

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol

    (2007)
  • K.J. Chang et al.

    The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic carcinoma

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (1997)
  • F. Gress et al.

    Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience

    Am J Gastroenterol

    (2001)
  • B.J. Hoffman

    EUS-guided celiac plexus block/neurolysis

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2002)
  • M. Mohamadnejad et al.

    Utility of EUS-guided biopsy of extramural pelvic masses

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2012)
  • W.K. Hirota et al.

    Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2003)
  • D.A. Schwartz et al.

    EUS for rectal disease

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2002)
  • L.S. Lee et al.

    EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors

    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol

    (2005)
  • C. Guarner-Argente et al.

    Use of antimicrobials for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective, comparative analysis

    Gastrointest Endosc

    (2011)
  • Cited by (160)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This document is a product of the Standards of Practice Committee. This document was reviewed and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

    View full text