Published online Oct 16, 2014. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v6.i10.499
Revised: July 31, 2014
Accepted: September 4, 2014
Published online: October 16, 2014
Processing time: 125 Days and 8.5 Hours
AIM: To ascertain fine needle aspiration (FNA) techniques by endosonographers with varying levels of experience and environments.
METHODS: A survey study was performed on United States based endosonographers. The subjects completed an anonymous online electronic survey. The main outcome measurements were differences in needle choice, FNA technique, and clinical decision making among endosonographers and how this relates to years in practice, volume of EUS-FNA procedures, and practice environment.
RESULTS: A total of 210 (30.8%) endosonographers completed the survey. Just over half (51.4%) identified themselves as academic/university-based practitioners. The vast majority of respondents (77.1%) identified themselves as high-volume endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (> 150 EUS/year) and high-volume FNA (> 75 FNA/year) performers (73.3). If final cytology is non-diagnostic, high-volume EUS physicians were more likely than low volume physicians to repeat FNA with a core needle (60.5% vs 31.2%; P = 0.0004), and low volume physicians were more likely to refer patients for either surgical or percutaneous biopsy, (33.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.0001). Academic physicians were more likely to repeat FNA with a core needle (66.7%) compared to community physicians (40.2%, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in EUS-FNA practices among United States endosonographers. Differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.
Core tip: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has become a mainstay in the evaluation of various gastrointestinal diseases. However, little is known about the preferred FNA techniques used by practitioners. The aim of this survey study was to evaluate the practice patterns of a heterogeneous group of endosonographers. Subjects were queried in regards to training, experience, case volume, and preferences regarding FNA needle choice and techniques used. The results demonstrate a moderate variation in EUS-FNA practices among those endosonographers who responded to the survey (n = 210). Significant differences appear to be related to EUS volume and practice environment.