Pancreatology is never boring! The authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. “
“EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) is a very sensitive technique for establishing tissue diagnosis in patients

with suspected GI malignancies and periluminal CHIR-99021 in vitro lesions.1 and 2 Several factors determine the technical outcomes of an FNA procedure: location and nature of the lesion, presence of an on-site cytopathologist, and the experience of the endosonographer.3, 4 and 5 Studies have shown that more FNA passes are required to establish a definitive diagnosis in patients with pancreatic masses compared with other lesions, particularly in the absence of an on-site cytopathologist.6 However, routinely performing more than 5 passes in every patient with a pancreatic mass represents a substantial burden in

terms of procedural duration, need for adjunctive sedation, increased risk of complications, and, more importantly, use of additional needles per case. Although several studies have evaluated the technical aspects of an FNA procedure,7, 8 and 9 to our knowledge, no study has examined the relationship between technical outcomes and resource use. Given the increasing number of EUS procedures being performed and the need to use more than one needle in some patients because of technical Ivacaftor nmr failure,10 and 11 this study attempted to develop an algorithm with the objective of improving technical outcomes and optimizing resource use for FNA procedures and interventions. An algorithmic approach based on using specific needles for different routes during FNA or interventions improves the technical outcomes and resource use of EUS procedures. Given the lack of adequate data on resource use during EUS procedures, this study was Ureohydrolase executed in two phases: phase I for retrospective

data analysis to assess technical outcomes and resource use during EUS-FNA/interventions and phase II for prospective validation of an algorithm designed to improve technical outcomes and resource use. In both phases, we excluded patients who underwent sampling of more than one lesion in a single endoscopic session and those enrolled in clinical trials evaluating specific FNA needles. This involved retrospective analysis of all EUS-FNA procedures/interventions performed over a 7-month period from January to July 2010 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The EUS database was queried for patient demographics, procedural indications, lesion sampled, FNA route, type and number of needles used per procedure, diagnostic adequacy, and complications. All procedures were performed by two endosonographers who used the standard 19-gauge needles (EchoTip, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) for interventions and the 22 or 25–gauge needles interchangeably for performing FNAs.