• Users Online:1230
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
EDITORIAL
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 143-148

European federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology guidelines 2015 on interventional endoscopic ultrasound


1 Department of Medicine, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Uhlandstr, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
2 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Bologna/Hospital of Imola, Bologna, Italy
3 Department of Internal Medicine, Krankenhaus Maerkisch-Oderland, D-15344 Strausberg, Germany

Date of Submission01-Feb-2016
Date of Acceptance05-Mar-2016
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2016

Correspondence Address:
Christoph F Dietrich
Department of Medicine, Caritas-Krankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Med. Klinik 2, Caritaskrankenhaus Bad Mergentheim, Uhlandstr 7, D-97980 Bad Mergentheim
Germany
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2303-9027.183968

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Dietrich CF, Fusaroli P, Jenssen C. European federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology guidelines 2015 on interventional endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound 2016;5:143-8

How to cite this URL:
Dietrich CF, Fusaroli P, Jenssen C. European federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology guidelines 2015 on interventional endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Sep 18];5:143-8. Available from: http://www.eusjournal.com/text.asp?2016/5/3/143/183968

The recently published guidelines of the European Federation of societies for ultrasound in medicine and biology (EFSUMB) on interventional ultrasound (INVUS)-guided procedures [1],[2] summarize the intended interdisciplinary and multiprofessional approach. A foreword,[3] an introduction,[4] the aims of EFSUMB guidelines on INVUS [5] as well as a guide to the EFSUMB website [6] have been published. Over the last 10 years, EFSUMB has published guidelines and recommendations on the use of different ultrasound techniques. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) guidelines were first introduced by EFSUMB in 2004,[7] updated in 2008,[8] 2011,[9] and 2012.[10],[11] In addition, an introduction into dynamic CEUS for quantification of tumor perfusion was published as well.[12] EFSUMB elastography guidelines were introduced in 2013[13],[14] followed by guidelines of the World Federation of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 2 years later.[15],[16],[17] Those guidelines on CEUS and elastography included recommendations and comments on the emerging endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided applications of these techniques. We also refer to the currently published textbook on INVUS, which was also a motivation for more evidence-based recommendations.[18],[19] The EFSUMB activities could guide an approach to our societies, the Euro EUS Scientific Committee, Asia Pacific EUS Task Force and Latin American Chapter of EUS and their respective journal, EUS, to prepare and publish not only high-value reviews [20],[21],[22],[23],[24] but also guidelines.[4],[25],[26]


  Interventional Ultrasound Guidelines Top


The recently published guidelines consist of six main parts that are published in Ultraschall in der Medizin/European Journal of Ultrasound:[1],[2],[4],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32]

  1. Part I: General aspects
  2. Part II: Abdominal diagnostic procedures
  3. Part III: Abdominal treatment procedures using the transcutaneous approach
  4. Part IV: EUS-guided interventions: General aspects and EUS-guided sampling
  5. Part V: EUS-guided therapeutic interventions
  6. Part VI: Ultrasound-guided vascular interventions.


Part I: General aspects

This part deals with general principles that are important and relevant for all kind of INVUS procedures, diagnostic, as well as therapeutic: B-mode imaging and the use of CEUS in INVUS procedures, guiding techniques including fusion imaging, patient information, informed consent and patient preparation, local anesthesia and sedation, hygiene management, puncture routes and accessing techniques, how to reduce and/or eliminate complications, and finally how INVUS is organized locally.[1],[2]

Part II: Abdominal diagnostic procedures using the transcutaneous approach

This part deals with the workup both in clinical terms and in imaging, prior to the use of an interventional procedure to either diagnose or treat an abnormality. The section is divided into both an organ-specific discussion as well as targeting particular “niche” areas that will concern readers of the guidelines. All imaging modalities play a role in the workup of these patients, and not always will an ultrasound-guided procedure be the most appropriate imaging tool. This is clearly detailed with an evidence-based assessment of the diagnostic route and the final imaging approach to resolve the clinical situation.[31],[32]

Part III: Abdominal treatment procedures using the transcutaneous approach

Therapeutic abscess drainage and the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, interventional tumor ablation techniques,[33] interventional treatments for cysts in general, and specifically parasitic diseases (PAIR for echinococcosis), enrich our daily practice.[34],[35] Hence, do established therapeutic procedures such as percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and drainage, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, percutaneous ultrasound-guided gastrostomy, biliary and urinary bladder drainage, and nephrostomy.[27] Symptom-oriented palliative care interventions are an important issue that concludes the chapter.[36]

Part IV: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions: General aspects and endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling

EUS is now widely regarded as one of the supreme disciplines in endoscopy. Initial enthusiasm over the diagnostic results obtained with 360° cross-sectional radial scanning has settled to a more realistic level, particularly since the advent of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging technologies. EUS has made “hidden places” accessible for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. EUS-guided sampling was introduced in the early 1990s [37] and 20 years later was proclaimed to have afforded a “disruptive innovation effect” for pancreatic pathology.[38] It combines most advanced high-resolution ultrasound imaging of lesions within the wall and in the vicinity of the gastrointestinal tract with safe and effective tissue acquisition using fine needles of 25–19 gauge. The fourth part of the guidelines deals with indications and clinical impact of EUS-guided sampling and tries to balance advantages and drawbacks in comparison with image-guided percutaneous biopsy. Needle choice and biopsy technique, as well as specimen processing, are crucial for success,[39],[40] and therefore evidence-based recommendations are given for almost all steps of EUS-guided sampling as well as for safe performance.[30] The first international guidelines on EUS-guided sampling were published in 2011 and 2012 by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.[41],[42] In the approximately 5 years since the preparation of these ground-breaking guidelines, scientific literature in EUS-guided sampling has expanded dramatically. The recommendations of the EFSUMB guidelines are now based on 21 meta-analyses describing the performance of EUS-guided sampling in solid and cystic pancreatic lesions, biliary strictures, and masses and mediastinal lymph nodes. The majority of those meta-analyses (15 out of 21) and more than 50% of all available studies on EUS-guided sampling (1570 out of 3014 papers) have been published in the years from 2012 to 2015. High-quality evidence (randomized controlled studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, guidelines) has been published in the last 4 years, for example, comparing the diagnostic efficiency of fine needles of various diameters, evaluating the impact of on-site cytology and of molecular analyses, and describing the occurrence and outcome of atypical findings in EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48] Studies demonstrating a very high diagnostic efficacy of 25 gauge aspiration needles for diagnosis of solid pancreatic neoplasms as well as the emergence of new types of “histology needles” have broadened the opportunities of EUS-guided sampling.[43],[49] Recently, the role of on-site cytology has been questioned by several studies showing an incremental yield of combining smear cytology with cell block or tissue core assessment and molecular studies in terms of diagnostic yield and accuracy as well as by two multicenter randomized studies showing equal results of on-site cytopathologist-guided sampling and of performing a standardized number of needle passes in solid pancreatic tumors.[50],[51] Prompted by the advent of personalized, targeted treatments in visceral oncology, a paradigm shift has occurred onto cytopathological and molecular subtyping of EUS-samples from various neoplasms.[52],[53],[54] These recent developments are reflected by up-to-date recommendations on needle choice, cell-block and tissue core preparations, the role of on-site cytopathological assessment as well as on using a complimentary approach combining cytopathological, and histopathological assessment of samples.[30] Evidence was added also in the important field of guidance and targeting of EUS-guided sampling by advanced endosonographic tools for tissue characterization (real-time elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS). Acknowledging significant variations in practice and outcome between examiners and EUS centers worldwide,[55],[56] quality indicators are suggested to be implemented in clinical practice to allow for performance monitoring and benchmarking of EUS-guided sampling techniques.[30] Based on an analysis of data regarding the reporting and reliability of cytopathology in EUS-guided sampling, the guideline recommends to use a standardized and validated classification system for cytopathology reporting.[30] An addendum on important terms used in the literature of EUS-guided sampling provides further details of the 55 evidence-based recommendations in the guidelines on EUS-guided sampling.

The EFSUMB guidelines emphasize that by the combination of fine needle aspiration using curved linear-array instruments, and the use of Doppler, contrast-enhanced EUS,[57],[58],[59] and elastography, EUS has finally become a state-of-the-art, minimally invasive alternative to exploratory surgery in many situations not only for diagnostic, but also for therapeutic purposes.

Part V: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapeutic interventions

The fifth part of the EFSUMB guidelines deals with the therapeutic interventions that can be provided by the means of EUS guidance. EUS-guided therapeutic techniques are compared with their percutaneous alternatives to help the clinician choose the most appropriate solutions for challenging therapeutic problems.[28]

The two most established techniques are EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis and pseudocyst drainage. They were described soon after the introduction of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration [60],[61] and since then have been investigated in numerous research trials.[62],[63],[64],[65],[66],[67] The expert panel found high levels of evidence in the literature to demonstrate the superiority of both techniques versus a percutaneous approach. On the other hand, the effectiveness of EUS-guided celiac plexus block injecting anesthetic and steroid drugs instead of absolute alcohol for the treatment of pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis is still debated.[68],[69]

EUS-guided drainage of the biliary duct and the gallbladder has become a valid alternative to percutaneous drainage after failed attempts with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. However, several technical aspects and its safety profile are still debated. The advent of lumen-apposing metals stents has significantly simplified the EUS-guided approach and probably has opened a new era of EUS-guided interventions on the biliary tree.[70],[71],[72],[73],[74],[75] However, EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct to relieve pain in patients with ductal obstruction has been reported in a limited number of patients with uncertain balance between clinical outcome and side effects.[76],[77]

EUS-guided vascular interventions are rapidly expanding, comprising treatment of bleeding in patients with portal hypertension, treatment of nonvariceal bleeding and pseudo-aneurysms as well as new indications such as portal vein pressure measurement.[78],[79],[80],[81] As far as treatment of extra-esophageal and fundal varies is concerned, significant advantages have been reported using a forward view echoendoscope specifically developed for EUS-guided therapies. It combines the advantages of a frontal endoscopic view with a forward viewing ultrasound beam that allows for a straight approach onto target lesions.[82],[83]

Finally, EUS-guided tumor therapy has attracted a lot of interest in recent years. In particular, EUS-guided ethanol injection for the treatment of pancreatic cysts and neuroendocrine tumors, EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation for inoperable pancreatic tumors and EUS-guided injection of anti-tumoral agents were reported.[84],[85],[86],[87],[88],[89] However, positive results are still lacking both in terms of safety and efficacy. As a result, EUS-guided tumor therapy should still be considered investigational.

Part VI: Ultrasound-guided vascular interventions

Evidence-based recommendations support the use of ultrasound to guide ultrasound procedures and to detect complications of vascular access and US-guided treatment of arterial pseudoaneurysms.[29]


  Other Ultrasound-Guided Interventions Top


Other US-guided interventions have been reported [90],[91],[92] but are not the topic of this editorial.

 
  References Top

1.
Lorentzen T, Nolsøe CP, Ewertsen C, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part I. General aspects (long Version). Ultraschall Med 2015;36:E1-14.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lorentzen T, Nolsøe CP, Ewertsen C, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part I. General aspects (Short Version). Ultraschall Med 2015;36:464-72.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lutz HT. Foreword. Ultraschall Med 2015;36:457-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Sidhu PS, et al. An introduction to the EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS). Ultraschall Med 2015;36:460-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Dietrich CF. EFSUMB guidelines 2015 on interventional ultrasound. Med Ultrason 2015;17:521-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Dietrich CF, Rudd L. The EFSUMB website, a guide for better understanding. Med Ultrason 2013;15:215-23.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L, et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. January 2004. Ultraschall Med 2004;25:249-56.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Claudon M, Cosgrove D, Albrecht T, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) – Update 2008. Ultraschall Med 2008;29:28-44.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:33-59.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – Update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:11-29.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Claudon M, Dietrich CF, Choi BI, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver – Update 2012: A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS. Ultrasound Med Biol 2013;39:187-210.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Dietrich CF, Averkiou MA, Correas JM, et al. An EFSUMB introduction into dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) for quantification of tumour perfusion. Ultraschall Med 2012;33:344-51.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Bamber J, Cosgrove D, Dietrich CF, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 1: Basic principles and technology. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:169-84.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: Clinical applications. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:238-53.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Shiina T, Nightingale KR, Palmeri ML, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 1: Basic principles and terminology. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1126-47.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Barr RG, Nakashima K, Amy D, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 2: Breast. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1148-60.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Ferraioli G, Filice C, Castera L, et al. WFUMB guidelines and recommendations for clinical use of ultrasound elastography: Part 3: Liver. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:1161-79.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Dietrich CF, Nuernberg D. Interventional Ultrasound. Stuttgart: Thieme Publisher; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Dietrich CF, Nuernberg D. Interventionelle Sonographie. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bhutani MS. Role of endoscopic ultrasound for pancreatic cystic lesions: Past, present, and future! Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:273-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Adler DG, Diehl DL. Missed lesions in endoscopic ultrasound. Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:165-7.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Baron TH, DeSimio TM. New ex-vivo porcine model for endoscopic ultrasound-guided training in transmural puncture and drainage of pancreatic cysts and fluid collections (with videos). Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:34-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Konge L, Colella S, Vilmann P, et al. How to learn and to perform endoscopic ultrasound and endobronchial ultrasound for lung cancer staging: A structured guide and review. Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:4-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Dietrich CF, Jenssen C, Arcidiacono PG, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound: Elastographic lymph node evaluation. Endosc Ultrasound 2015;4:176-90.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ingravallo F, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, et al. Guidelines, clinical practice recommendations, position papers and consensus statements: Definition, preparation, role and application. Ultraschall Med 2014;35:395-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Bolondi L. The appropriate allocation of CEUS in the diagnostic algorithm of liver lesions: A debated issue. Ultraschall Med 2013;34:8-10.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Dietrich CF, Lorentzen T, Appelbaum L, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part III – Abdominal treatment procedures (Long Version). Ultraschall Med 2016;37:E1-32.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Fusaroli P, Jenssen C, Hocke M, et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part V. Ultraschall Med 2015 [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Jenssen C, Brkljacic B, Hocke M, et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part VI. Ultraschall Med 2015 [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Jenssen C, Hocke M, Fusaroli P, et al. EFSUMB Guidelines on Interventional Ultrasound (INVUS), Part IV – EUS-guided interventions: General Aspects and EUS-guided Sampling (Short version). Ultraschall Med 2016;37:157-169; Long version (online): Ultraschall Med 2016;37:E33-E76.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Sidhu PS, Brabrand K, Cantisani V, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part II. Ultraschall Med 2015;36:E15-35.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Sidhu PS, Brabrand K, Cantisani V, et al. EFSUMB guidelines on interventional ultrasound (INVUS), part II. Ultraschall Med 2015;36:566-80.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Dietrich CF, Cui XW, Chiorean L, et al. Local ablative procedures of the liver. Z Gastroenterol 2015;53:579-90.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Gottschalk U, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Ultrasound-guided interventions and description of the equipment. Z Gastroenterol 2010;48:1305-16.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Gottschalk U, Ignee A, Dietrich CF. Ultrasound guided interventions, part 1, diagnostic procedures. Z Gastroenterol 2009;47:682-90.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Nürnberg D, Jenssen C, Cui X, et al. Ultrasound in palliative care medicine. Z Gastroenterol 2015;53:409-16.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:172-3.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Eltoum IA, Alston EA, Roberson J. Trends in pancreatic pathology practice before and after implementation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: An example of disruptive innovation effect? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012;136:447-53.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Hocke M, Ignee A, Topalidis T, et al. Back to the roots – Should gastroenterologists perform their own cytology? Z Gastroenterol 2013;51:191-5.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Dietrich CF, Jenssen C. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy technical guidelines. Endosc Ultrasound 2013;2:117-22.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Dumonceau JM, Polkowski M, Larghi A, et al. Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2011;43:897-912.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Polkowski M, Larghi A, Weynand B, et al. Learning, techniques, and complications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical guideline. Endoscopy 2012;44:190-206.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Madhoun MF, Wani SB, Rastogi A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2013;45:86-92.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Affolter KE, Schmidt RL, Matynia AP, et al. Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2013;58:1026-34.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Bang J, Northeved A. A new ultrasonic method for transabdominal amniocentesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972;114:599-601.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Hébert-Magee S, Bae S, Varadarajulu S, et al. The presence of a cytopathologist increases the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A meta-analysis. Cytopathology 2013;24:159-71.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Abdelgawwad MS, Alston E, Eltoum IA. The frequency and cancer risk associated with the atypical cytologic diagnostic category in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens of solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis and argument for a Bethesda system for reporting cytopathology of the pancreas. Cancer Cytopathol 2013;121:620-8.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Fuccio L, Hassan C, Laterza L, et al. The role of K-ras gene mutation analysis in EUS-guided FNA cytology specimens for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic solid masses: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:596-608.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. A meta-analysis comparing ProCore and standard fine-needle aspiration needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition. Endoscopy 2016;48:339-49.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Lee LS, Nieto J, Watson RR, et al. Randomized noninferiority trial comparing diagnostic yield of cytopathologist-guided versus 7 passes for EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc 2015 [Epub ahead of print].  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Wani S, Mullady D, Early DS, et al. The clinical impact of immediate on-site cytopathology evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1429-39.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Navani N, Brown JM, Nankivell M, et al. Suitability of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens for subtyping and genotyping of non-small cell lung cancer: A multicenter study of 774 patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;185:1316-22.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Esterbrook G, Anathhanam S, Plant PK. Adequacy of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration samples in the subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2013;80:30-4.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Tournoy KG, Carprieaux M, Deschepper E, et al. Are EUS-FNA and EBUS-TBNA specimens reliable for subtyping non-small cell lung cancer? Lung Cancer 2012;76:46-50.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Dumonceau JM, Koessler T, van Hooft JE, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration: Relatively low sensitivity in the endosonographer population. World J Gastroenterol 2012;18:2357-63.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
DiMaio CJ, Buscaglia JM, Gross SA, et al. Practice patterns in FNA technique: A survey analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:499-505.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Dietrich CF, Ignee A, Frey H. Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound with low mechanical index: A new technique. Z Gastroenterol 2005;43:1219-23.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Dietrich CF, Jenssen C. Evidence based endoscopic ultrasound. Z Gastroenterol 2011;49:599-621.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Dietrich CF, Hocke M, Jenssen C. Interventional endosonography. Ultraschall Med 2011;32:8-22.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Wiersema MJ, Wiersema LM. Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:656-62.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Wiersema MJ. Endosonography-guided cystoduodenostomy with a therapeutic ultrasound endoscope. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:614-7.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Yan BM, Myers RP. Neurolytic celiac plexus block for pain control in unresectable pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:430-8.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Levy MJ, Topazian MD, Wiersema MJ, et al. Initial evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided direct ganglia neurolysis and block. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:98-103.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Wyse JM, Carone M, Paquin SC, et al. Randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of early endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis to prevent pain progression in patients with newly diagnosed, painful, inoperable pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3541-6.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
LeBlanc JK, Al-Haddad M, McHenry L, et al. Aprospective, randomized study of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pancreatic cancer: One injection or two? Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1300-7.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Akshintala VS, Saxena P, Zaheer A, et al. Acomparative evaluation of outcomes of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:921-8.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA, et al. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: Outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:2080-8.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Puli SR, Reddy JB, Bechtold ML, et al. EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for pain due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatic cancer pain: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Dig Dis Sci 2009;54:2330-7.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Stevens T, Costanzo A, Lopez R, et al. Adding triamcinolone to endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus blockade does not reduce pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:186-91, 191.e1.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Wiersema MJ, Sandusky D, Carr R, et al. Endosonography-guided cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43(2 Pt 1):102-6.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Giovannini M, Moutardier V, Pesenti C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided bilioduodenal anastomosis: A new technique for biliary drainage. Endoscopy 2001;33:898-900.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Will U, Fueldner F, Kern C, et al. EUS-guided bile duct drainage (EUBD) in 95 patients. Ultraschall Med 2015;36:276-83.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Kahaleh M, Artifon EL, Perez-Miranda M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography guided biliary drainage: Summary of consortium meeting, May 7th, 2011, Chicago. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:1372-9.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Dhir V, Itoi T, Khashab MA, et al. Multicenter comparative evaluation of endoscopic placement of expandable metal stents for malignant distal common bile duct obstruction by ERCP or EUS-guided approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:913-23.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Moon JH, Choi HJ, Kim DC, et al. Anewly designed fully covered metal stent for lumen apposition in EUS-guided drainage and access: A feasibility study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:990-5.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Harada N, Kouzu T, Arima M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatography: A case report. Endoscopy 1995;27:612-5.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Fujii LL, Topazian MD, Abu Dayyeh BK, et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention: Outcomes of a single tertiary-care referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:854-64.e1.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Levy MJ, Wong Kee Song LM, Farnell MB, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided angiotherapy of refractory gastrointestinal bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:352-9.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Romero-Castro R, Ellrichmann M, Ortiz-Moyano C, et al. EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: A multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2013;78:711-21.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Lameris R, du Plessis J, Nieuwoudt M, et al. A visceral pseudoaneurysm: Management by EUS-guided thrombin injection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:392-5.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Giday SA, Clarke JO, Buscaglia JM, et al. EUS-guided portal vein catheterization: A promising novel approach for portal angiography and portal vein pressure measurements. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;67:338-42.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah JN, et al. EUS-guided transesophageal treatment of gastric fundal varices with combined coiling and cyanoacrylate glue injection (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1019-25.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Fusaroli P, Ceroni L, Caletti G. Forward-view endoscopic ultrasound: A systematic review of diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Endosc Ultrasound 2013;2:64-70.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
DeWitt J, McGreevy K, Schmidt CM, et al. EUS-guided ethanol versus saline solution lavage for pancreatic cysts: A randomized, double-blind study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:710-23.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Oh HC, Seo DW, Song TJ, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided ethanol lavage with paclitaxel injection treats patients with pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 2011;140:172-9.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Jürgensen C, Schuppan D, Neser F, et al. EUS-guided alcohol ablation of an insulinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:1059-62.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Chang KJ, Reid T, Senzer N, et al. Phase I evaluation of TNFerade biologic plus chemoradiotherapy before esophagectomy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1139-46.e2.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Arcidiacono PG, Carrara S, Reni M, et al. Feasibility and safety of EUS-guided cryothermal ablation in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:1142-51.  Back to cited text no. 88
    
89.
Sun S, Ge N, Wang S, et al. Pilot trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided interstitial chemoradiation of UICC-T4 pancreatic cancer. Endosc Ultrasound 2012;1:41-7.  Back to cited text no. 89
    
90.
Dietrich CF, Annema JT, Clementsen P, et al. Ultrasound techniques in the evaluation of the mediastinum, part I: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) and transcutaneous mediastinal ultrasound (TMUS), introduction into ultrasound techniques. J Thorac Dis 2015;7:E311-25.  Back to cited text no. 90
    
91.
Jenssen C, Annema JT, Clementsen P, et al. Ultrasound techniques in the evaluation of the mediastinum, part 2: Mediastinal lymph node anatomy and diagnostic reach of ultrasound techniques, clinical work up of neoplastic and inflammatory mediastinal lymphadenopathy using ultrasound techniques and how to learn mediastinal endosonography. J Thorac Dis 2015;7:E439-58.  Back to cited text no. 91
    
92.
Dietrich CF, Mathis G, Cui XW, et al. Ultrasound of the pleurae and lungs. Ultrasound Med Biol 2015;41:351-65.  Back to cited text no. 92
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Interventional U...
   Other Ultrasound...
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1134    
    Printed16    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded313    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]