Skip to content

Comparing the Diagnostic Efficacy of Different Suction Techniques for EUS-FNB of Pancreatic Solid Lesions

Comparing the Diagnostic Efficacy of Different Suction Techniques for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Solid Lesions Using 25G Procore Needle: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicentric Clinical Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04100941
Enrollment
300
Registered
2019-09-24
Start date
2019-06-10
Completion date
2020-11-30
Last updated
2019-09-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Pancreatic Mass

Brief summary

There are many factors that can affect the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA, including lesion factors, the endoscoist experience, the needle size, the number of needle passes, and the suction technique. since diagnostic efficacy of different suction techniques for EUS-FNB is still uncertain, thus we decided to compare the diagnostic efficacy of three common methods: the 10 ml standard negative pressure, slow pull and wet suction.

Detailed description

the standard suction: after the needle is inserted in the mass, removing the stylet before performing EUS-FNA. Then attach a 10mL syringe to the end of needle. 20 times of for-backward Suction was applied after the lesion was punctured. slow-pull : after the needle is inserted in the mass, slowly pull the stylet out while performing EUS-FNA with 20 times for-backward. wet suction: after removing the stylet, the needle was flushed with 5mL of saline solution to replace the column of air with saline. A 10mL syringe was attached to the end of the needle. 20 times of for-backward Suction was applied after the lesion was punctured.

Interventions

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTstandard suction

After the needle is inserted in the mass, removing the stylet before performing EUS-FNA. Then attach a 10mL syringe to the end of needle. 20 times of for-backward Suction was applied after the lesion was punctured.

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTslow pull

After the needle is inserted in the mass, slowly pull the stylet out while performing EUS-FNA with 20 times for-backward.

DIAGNOSTIC_TESTwet suction

After removing the stylet, the needle was flushed with 5mL of saline solution to replace the column of air with saline. A 10mL syringe was attached to the end of the needle. 20 times of for-backward Suction was applied after the lesion was punctured.

Sponsors

Shenzhen People's Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
The Affiliated Hospital Of Southwest Medical University
CollaboratorOTHER
Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology
CollaboratorOTHER
The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University
CollaboratorOTHER
Changhai Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 75 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. age 18-75 years,male or female 2. diagnosis or suspection of solid pancreatic mass based on previous imaging examination (ultrasonography, CT or MRI) 3. lesion diameter larger than 1 cm 4. signed informed consent letter

Exclusion criteria

1. pregnant female 2. Pancreatic cystic lesions 3. Anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy cannot be suspended 4. unable or refuse to provide informed consent 5. Coagulopathy (platelet count \< 50× 103/μL,international normalized ratio \> 1.5) 6. Severe cardiopulmonary dysfunction that cannot tolerate intravenous anesthesia 7. with history of mental disease 8. other medical conditions that are not suitable for EUS-FNB

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
diagnostic accuracy of each individual technique1 yearThe results are compared with the gold standard and calculated the accuracy
diagnostic sensitivity of each individual technique1 yearThe results are compared with the gold standard and calculated the sensitivity
specificity of each individual technique1 yearThe results are compared with the gold standard and calculated the specificity

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
adverse event rate of each individual technique1 yearrecord any adverse events related to the procedure
blood contamination1 yearthe blood contamination will be determined by the pathologists analyzing the sample using a pre-defined scale. They will be blinded to the technique used
adequacy of specimens obtained by each individual technique1 yearthe adequacy will be determined by the pathologists analyzing the sample using a pre-defined scale. They will be blinded to the technique used
cellularity1 yearthe cellularity will be determined by the pathologists analyzing the sample using a pre-defined scale. They will be blinded to the technique used

Countries

China

Contacts

Primary ContactWei Zhou, M.D.
zhou_wei0012@163.com+8618021009362

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026