Article Text

Download PDFPDF

2SPD-017 Echo-endoscopy: for a sourcing as sharp as a needle
  1. MA Bildan1,
  2. O Chauvel1,
  3. JP Farmachidi2,
  4. JL Pons1,
  5. L Nicolas1
  1. 1Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Pharmacy, Argenteuil, France
  2. 2Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Argenteuil, France


Background In April 2018, the acquisition of two echo-endoscopes enabled the deployment of a new activity within the hospital centre. Echo-endoscopy is an act of exploration combining ultrasound with endoscopy, which allows, using specific needles, the realisation of sampling and therapeutic drainages.

Purpose Therefore, we compared the different market-available needles.

Material and methods Three providers (A, B, C), previously selected in a regional framework agreement, were solicited for new quotations and specimens. A technical sheet was designed evaluating: quality of packaging and labelling; composition of the kit; characteristics of the needles (dimensions, materials, fenestrated or not, echogenicity, penetration, graduation accuracy, grip, diameter compatibility with the working channel); and quality of the samples obtained. The scores of each supplier were calculated with a weighting of 80% for the quality and 20% for the price.

Results After analysing the new offers, provider B proposed separate needle references for cytological and histological diagnostic and for therapeutic drainage. Conversely, supplier A offered three sizes of the same model allowing these three functions. Finally, supplier C was not selected because of its higher quotation without any particular technical advantage. Subsequently, three specimens from A and B were evaluated on six patients.

These trials revealed four criteria differentiating needles A and B: quality of packaging, echogenicity, penetration of the needle and quality of the sample. Indeed, needle A displayed soft packaging offering a lesser protection, a lesser echogenicity and a lower sampling quality despite better penetration. The responsible gastroenterologist, aiming to use this technique mainly for diagnosis, therefore chose the needles of supplier B. The final marks were 16,56/20 for supplier B, 16,19/20 for supplier C and 16,00/20 for supplier A.

Conclusion The difference in the quality of the samples may be linked to needle B fenestration which allows the obtaining of a larger core at the expense of a weakening of the needle, and a decrease in the case of penetration. Thanks to a tight partnership with the medical team during these tests, pharmaceutical involvement helped to optimize the sourcing of a new product and the deployment of a new activity.

References and/or acknowledgements–360/jo/article_59

No conflict of interest.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.