首页> 外文期刊>Gastrointestinal Endoscopy >Accuracy of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS with a second-generation perflutren lipid microsphere contrast agent (with video).
【24h】

Accuracy of contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS with a second-generation perflutren lipid microsphere contrast agent (with video).

机译:使用第二代全氟脂质微球造影剂的对比增强谐波EUS的准确性(带视频)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: EUS-FNA has limitations in cancer diagnosis/staging. New contrast agents, transducers, and processors have improved the potential of contrast-enhanced harmonic (CEH)-EUS. OBJECTIVE: To determine optimal settings and preliminary accuracy of CEH-EUS by using a second-generation perflutren lipid microsphere contrast agent and a prototype linear echoendoscope. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative, pilot study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. PATIENTS: This study involved patients with esophageal/pancreatic/liver tumors or adenopathy. INTERVENTION: Contrast agent was injected (10 muL/kg intravenously in 1-2 doses), and the mechanical index was optimized over 5 cases (0.3). Intermittent/continuous imaging was used with extended pure harmonic detection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Before-contrast and after-contrast predictions of neoplasia (5-point Likert scale). The reference standard was positive tissue or 6-month follow-up. Perfusion factors (sequence, pattern, washout) were noted, and phases were video recorded (arterial, venous, and postvenous). RESULTS: Thirty sites (7 nodes and 16 pancreatic and 7 nonpancreatic masses) were imaged in 21 patients; 21 of 30 had FNA, and 5 had surgery. Four cases (13.3%) were rated as undecided/indeterminate with EUS (vs 1 [3.3%] with CEH-EUS; P = .35). Twenty-four cases with confirmed diagnoses (12 malignant and 12 benign) were used for test performance: positiveegative predictive values for CEH-EUS were 80.0% (95% confidence interval, 51.9%-95.7%)/100.0% (95% confidence interval, 63.0%-100.0%) versus 84.6%/100.0% for EUS. Accuracies, counting "undecided" (1 in CEH-EUS and 4 in EUS) as incorrect, were 83.3% and 79.2%. In 2 cases, management would change significantly: (1) liver hemangioma, avoiding FNA; and (2) mediastinal "cyst" confirmed as solid. LIMITATIONS: Small sample. Tissue not always available. CONCLUSION: CEH-EUS adds minimal imaging time and is accurate, with small improvement over EUS. Added information in vascular and cystic lesions can potentially change management.
机译:背景:EUS-FNA在癌症诊断/分期方面存在局限性。新的造影剂,换能器和处理器提高了对比度增强谐波(CEH)-EUS的潜力。目的:通过使用第二代全氟脂质微球造影剂和原型线性超声内窥镜确定CEH-EUS的最佳设置和初步准确性。设计:前瞻性,比较性,前瞻性研究。地点:三级医疗中心。患者:本研究涉及食管/胰腺/肝肿瘤或腺病患者。干预:注射造影剂(静脉注射1-2剂,剂量为10μL/ kg),并在5例患者中优化了机械指标(0.3)。间歇/连续成像与扩展的纯谐波检测一起使用。主要观察指标:瘤形成前后对比的预测(5分李克特量表)。参考标准是阳性组织或6个月的随访。记录灌注因子(顺序,模式,冲洗),并记录下各相(动脉,静脉和静脉后)。结果:对21例患者的30个部位(7个淋巴结,16个胰腺肿块和7个非胰腺肿块)进行了成像。 30例中有21例有FNA,5例有手术。有4例(13.3%)被EUS判定为未定/不确定(CEH-EUS为1 [3.3%]; P = 0.35)。 24例经确诊的病例(12例恶性和12例良性)用于测试性能:CEH-EUS的阳性/阴性预测值为80.0%(95%置信区间,51.9%-95.7%)/ 100.0%(95%)置信区间为63.0%-100.0%),而EUS为84.6%/ 100.0%。将“不确定”(CEH-EUS中为1,EUS中为4)视为不正确的准确度分别为83.3%和79.2%。在2例中,治疗将发生显着变化:(1)肝血管瘤,避免FNA; (2)纵隔“囊肿”被确认为固体。局限性:小样本。组织并不总是可用。结论:CEH-EUS显像时间最短且准确,与EUS相比改善不大。在血管和囊性病变中增加信息可能会改变治疗方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号