Cross-Sectional Study to Assess Endoscopic Ultrasound Practice in Portugal

• Autor(a) principal: Costa,Juliana M.
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Fernandes,Dália, Gonçalves,Bruno, Gonçalves,Raquel, Soares,João B.
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452019000500005
• topic: Endoscopic ultrasound; Echoendoscopy; Portugal; Survey questionnaire

Background: Despite the increasing number of national departments performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), there are no official data regarding clinical EUS practice in Portugal. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the current practice of EUS in Portugal. Methods: By email, we invited 1 physician of each one of the 26 national Gastroenterology Departments which perform EUS to complete a survey questionnaire available on the Google Forms platform. The online questionnaire was available from September 2017 until February 2018 and was answered only by physicians who perform EUS. Results: A total of 21/26 (80.8%) national Gastroenterology Departments answered the questionnaire. In Portugal, there are 42 echoendoscopes in total; most of the echoendoscopy units have only 1 EUS processor (81%), 1 radial echoendoscope (66.7%), 1 linear echoendoscope (76.2%), 1 anorectal probe (57.1%), but no miniprobes (85.7%). About 81% have histological core acquisition needles. In 81% of the units, there are at least 2 ultrasonographers who perform echoendoscopy together (at least 2 ultrasonographers per EUS) in 47.6% of these departments. The ultrasonographers also performed abdominal ultrasound (US), anal US, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 71.4, 66.7, and 42.9%, respectively. The echoendoscopy units have 2.4 ± 1.1 periods of echoendoscopy per week and 4 ± 1.5 EUS per period (499.2 ± 416.8 EUS per year). Subepithelial lesions and biliopancreatic lesion evaluation as well as gastrointestinal neoplasia staging were the most common EUS indications. The number of FNA (fineneedle aspirations) ranges from 10 to 160/year. Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) is available in 60% of units and is performed by the cytopathologist (66.7%) in the majority of cases. The main reason for omitting ROSE is the limited pathology staff. Cytopathological material is prepared by the ultrasonographer in 25% of the units. Air drying (50%) and formalin (50%) are most frequently used to fix and preserve smears, respectively. Pancreatic pseudocyst drainage (66.7%), celiac plexus neurolysis (52.4%) and pancreatic necrosectomy (42.9%) are the most widespread therapeutic procedures. Conclusions: This survey provides the first insight into the current status of digestive echoendoscopy in Portugal. There is a great variability in diagnostic and therapeutic echoendoscopy practice.