Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures

Table 1 Studies comparing contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration versus conventional endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration

Ref.	Study design	No. of pts CH-EUS/ EUS	Needle size (G), type	Contrast agent	Sensitivity (%), CH-EUS-FNA/B vs no CH-EUS-FNA/B	P value	Other findings
Hou et al[71], 2015	R	58/105	22, FNA	Sonovue	81.6 vs 70.8	NS
Sugimoto et al[24], 2015	RCT	20/20	22, 25, FNA	Sonazoid	90.0 vs 85.0	NS	Adequate for the 1st pass only
Seicean et al[12], 2017	P	51	22, FNA	Sonovue	82.9 vs 73.2	NS
Facciorusso et al[72], 2020	R	103/103	22, FNA	Sonovue	87.6 vs 80.0	NS
Seicean et al[29], 2020	RCT	148	22, FBA	Sonovue	87.6 vs 85.5	NS
Cho et al[26], 2021	RCT	120/120	19-25, FNA, FNB	Sonovue	85.8 vs 88.3	NS	Procore in 80%
Itonaga et al[30], 2020	P	93	22, FNA	Sonazoid	84.9 vs 68.8	0.003	Better adequacy in homogenous lesions and heterogenous lesions with non-enhancement areas
Lai et al[32], 2022	R	48/85	22, FNB	Sonazoid	91.0 vs 90.0	NS	2.2 vs 3.6 passes
Kuo et al[23], 2023	RCT	59/59	22, FNB	Sonazoid	100.0 vs 100.0	NS	A nodule < 4 cm and a sample length > 1 cm improved the rate of diagnosis

R: Retrospective; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; P: Prospective; CH-EUS-FNA/B: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration/biopsy; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; NS: Not significant; FNA: Fine needle aspiration; FNB: Fine needle biopsy.