International Journal of General Medicine (Dec 2021)

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions

  • Li C,
  • Mi J,
  • Gao F,
  • Zhu X,
  • Su M,
  • Xie X,
  • Zhao D

Journal volume & issue
Vol. Volume 14
pp. 10439 – 10446


Read online

Changjuan Li,1,2 Jianwei Mi,1 Fulai Gao,1 Xinying Zhu,1 Miao Su,1 Xiaoli Xie,1 Dongqiang Zhao1 1Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050000, Hebei Province, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Gastroenterology, The First Hospital of Handan City, Handan, 056002, Hebei Province, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Dongqiang ZhaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, No. 215, He ping West Road, Xinhua District, Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province, 050000, People’s Republic of ChinaTel +86 0311 66636179Email [email protected]: We aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle.Patients and Methods: Data from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis.Results: A total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis.Conclusion: EUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time.Keywords: sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, histology, cytology