EUS-guided ethanol versus saline solution lavage for pancreatic cysts: a randomized, double-blind study
Background
Surgery for pancreatic cysts is associated with significant morbidity. A pilot study previously demonstrated the safety of EUS-guided ethanol lavage of pancreatic cysts.
Objective
To determine whether EUS-guided ethanol lavage would decrease pancreatic cyst size more than saline solution lavage.
Design
Prospective, multicenter, randomized trial.
Setting
Two tertiary referral hospitals in the United States.
Patients
Patients referred for EUS with a 1- to 5-cm unilocular pancreatic cyst were randomized to blinded ethanol or saline solution lavage. Three months later, the cyst diameter was remeasured by EUS, and a second unblinded ethanol lavage was performed.
Interventions
EUS-guided pancreatic cyst lavage.
Main Outcome Measurements
Cyst ablation based on size changes from follow-up EUS, CT, and histology of resected specimens.
Results
Of 58 patients randomized, 16 were excluded and 42 underwent initial ethanol (n = 25) or saline solution (n = 17) lavage. Ethanol lavage resulted in a greater mean percentage of decrease in cyst surface area (−42.9; 95% CI, −58.4 to −27.4) compared with saline solution alone (–11.4; 95% CI, −25.0 to 2.2; P = .009). Nineteen (76.0%) of 25 and 14 (82.3%) of 17 patients randomized to ethanol and saline solution, respectively, underwent a second ethanol lavage. A follow-up CT scan demonstrated resolution in 12 (33.3%) of 36 cysts. Histology of 4 resected cysts demonstrated epithelial ablation ranging from 0% (saline solution alone) to 50% to 100% (1 or 2 ethanol lavages). Complication rates were similar in all groups.
Limitation
Short-term follow-up.
Conclusions
EUS-guided ethanol lavage results in a greater decrease in pancreatic cyst size compared with saline solution lavage with a similar safety profile. Overall CT-defined complete pancreatic cyst ablation was 33.3%. (This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT00233038.)
Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen, IPMN, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, MCN, mucinous cystadenoma
To access this article, please choose from the options below
DISCLOSURE: The following author received research support for this study from an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Research and Outcomes and Effectiveness grant: W. R. Brugge. The funding source had no role in the study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
See CME section; p. 748.
If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact him at jodewitt@iupui.edu.
PII: S0016-5107(09)01716-7
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.03.1173
© 2009 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Refers to article:
- CME Activity: Continuing Medical Education Exam: October 2009
