Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in the diagnosis of upper GI subepithelial lesions with EUS-guided FNA: a prospective, randomized, crossover study

Background: The role of the forward-viewing echoendoscope compared with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope for EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of upper GI subepithelial lesions has not been defined. Objective: To compare the diagnostic yield and clinical efficacy of EUS-FNA by using the 2 echoendoscopes in the same upper GI subepithelial lesion. Design: Prospective, randomized, crossover study. Setting: Tertiary-care medical center. Patients: Forty-one patients with an upper GI subepithelial lesion. Interventions: All patients first underwent EUS-FNA with a 19-gauge needle by using both echoendoscopes, based on random selection. When required, 22-gauge or 25-gauge needles were used additionally. Main Outcome Measurements: Comparison of diagnostic yield, tissue sample area, puncture success rates, procedure time, and adverse events. Results: Forty-one patients (median lesion size 22 mm, range 15-63 mm) were enrolled. Rates of histologic diagnosis were 80.5% (33/41) and 73.2% (30/41) (P = .453) by using forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median tissue sample area in GI stromal tumors (n = 22) obtained with the forward-viewing echoendoscope was larger than with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (2.46 mm(2) vs 1.00 mm2; P = .046). Puncture success rates were 39 of 41 (95.1%) and 35 of 41 (85.4%; P = .289) with forward-viewing and oblique-viewing echoendoscopes, respectively. Median procedure time was 21 minutes with the forward-viewing echoendoscope and 27 minutes with the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (P = .009). An infectious adverse event occurred in a patient and was treated with antibiotics. Limitations: Small sample size. Conclusion: Diagnostic yield did not differ between the 2 echoendoscopes. However, tissue sample area and procedure time were superior with the forward-viewing echoendoscope.