The efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy versus percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver disease: a retrospective single-center study

The Benign Liver EUS Optimal Core Study (BLOCs): A Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study Evaluating Wet-suction Versus Slow Pull Technique for EUS-guided Liver Biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The specimen quality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) for benign liver disease evaluation depends on the technique and type of needle used. Using a 19-gauge (19 g) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle with 3 actuations and wet suction (WS) or slow stylet pull is the current preferred practice. We conducted a randomized prospective multicenter trial to compare wet suction (WS) to slow stylet pull (SP) technique to compare histologic yields, length of procedure, and adverse events (AE).

METHODS

This prospective randomized trial (NCT03245580) included patients undergoing EUS-LB for parenchymal biopsy at 6 centers in the United States in 2020-2021. A 19 g Franseen tip EUS needle was used for all procedures. For WS, the needle was flushed with saline, and a 20 ml suction syringe with 3 to 5 ml of fluid was used. For SP, a slow pullback of stylet was used. Pathologist was blinded for tissue interpretation.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-three patients across 6 tertiary centers were included, with 75 patients in the WS arm and 78 patients in the SP arm. Histologic outcomes were superior in WS compared with SP [aggregate specimen length (46.5 vs. 34.5 mm, P<0.001), length of longest fragment (14 vs. 11 mm, P<0.001), and number of complete portal tracts (16 vs. 11.5, P<0.001)]. The overall ability to make a histological diagnosis was higher in WS (99% vs. 92%). Procedure length and AE did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of WS compared with SP for EUS-LB resulted in superior specimen yields. Total procedure time and adverse events were similar for both techniques.

Surface area outcomes in EUS-guided liver biopsy: a comparative study of Franseen and Fork-tip needles

BACKGROUND

The practice of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is becoming more common due to its proven safety and effectiveness. For accurate diagnosis, it is vital to secure ample tissue specimens. However, gauging the volume of tissue specimens accurately poses a challenge with existing methods. Additionally, determining the most suitable fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle requires further study. Our aim was to contrast the tissue surface areas obtained using Franseen and Fork-tip needles and to identify factors affecting tissue volume.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed liver tissue samples collected through EUS-LB using 19-gauge Franseen and Fork-tip needles from patients suffering from diffuse liver diseases, conducted in our hospital from April 2019 to April 2022. We primarily focused on measuring hepatic tissue surface area and portal tract count, alongside examining patient-related factors that could influence tissue surface area.

RESULTS

The study involved 20 cases for each type of needle. The comparison revealed no significant disparities in the total liver tissue surface area (22.0 mm2 vs. 22.6 mm2, P = 0.45) or in the portal tract counts (30 vs. 20, P = 0.16). No adverse incidents were noted in either group. Both univariate and multivariate analyses highlighted that fibrosis and metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) presence were significant determinants of the total hepatic tissue area (P = 0.04, P < 0.05; and P = 0.02, P = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The capabilities of both needles in acquiring liver tissue were comparably effective. The volume of tissue was affected by the severity of fibrosis and the occurrence of MASLD.

[Endo-Hepatology: New Endoscopic Solutions for Old Hepatological Problems]

With the rapid development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), diagnostic and therapeutic platforms have emerged that are applicable in hepatology. New tools such as EUS-guided portal pressure measurement (in combination with EUS-guided liver biopsy) or EUS-guided variceal obliteration using coils and glue present attractive procedures that can potentially overcome the limitations of current gold standards. In this review article, we provide an overview of these new 'endo-hepatology' techniques and highlight their current role in the treatment of liver diseases.

A cost-effective measure to prevent hemorrhage in ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver biopsy

BACKGROUND

Liver biopsy is a procedure whereby a biopsy needle is used to extract tissue from the liver parenchyma or focal lesions of the liver for pathological or microbiological examination. Percutaneous liver biopsy(PC-LB) is the most commonly employed and least expensive modality. However, it is associated with a significant risk of bleeding complications, which may potentially result in patient mortality. The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of Absorbable Gelatin Sponge sheet filler agent (AGS-SFA) in preventing bleeding complications during liver tissue biopsy and to validate a cost-effective surgical technique.

METHODS

In this study, patients who underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous liver tissue biopsy at our hospital were selected and randomly assigned to either an observation or control group. The observation group employed the use of AGS-SFA to fill the biopsy needle channel. Immediately following the biopsy procedure, the biopsy needle path was examined using Doppler ultrasound. The incidence of bleeding complications following biopsy and the associated factors influencing bleeding were analysed in the two groups.

RESULTS

The observation and control groups were successfully biopsied, with a 100% success rate for both. The incidence of bleeding complications was significantly lower in the observation group than in the control group. Four factors, including fatty liver, prothrombin time, albumin and INR, were found to have a significant effect on biopsy bleeding in the control group.

CONCLUSION

The use of coaxial needles to inject AGS-SFA is an effective and economical procedure that significantly improves the safety of biopsy without increasing the burden of patient care.

Review article: Oesophageal disorders in chronic liver disease

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease are common worldwide and significantly impact quality of life. The intricate link between these conditions, including how oesophageal disorders like GERD, Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal cancer affect and are affected by chronic liver disease, remains poorly understood.

AIMS

To review the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, evaluating epidemiology, pathophysiology and therapeutic factors.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on the relationship between oesophageal disorders and chronic liver disease, including cirrhosis, using the PubMed database RESULTS: Oesophageal disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett's oesophagus, oesophageal cancer, oesophageal motor disorders and oesophageal candidiasis are prevalent among individuals with cirrhosis, exacerbating the burden of liver disease. These diseases have a multifaceted symptomatology and pathogenic basis, posing a significant challenge in cirrhotic patients that necessitates careful diagnosis and management. Additionally, therapies frequently used for these diseases, such as proton pump inhibitors, require careful consideration in cirrhotic patients due to potential adverse effects and altered pharmacokinetics. Managing oesophageal disorders in cirrhotic patients requires a cautious approach due to possible interactions with medications and the risk of adverse effects. Furthermore, symptoms associated with these conditions are often exacerbated by common interventions in patients with cirrhosis, such as band ligation for oesophageal varices.

CONCLUSIONS

Oesophageal disorders are common in cirrhosis and increase the disease burden. These conditions require careful management due to complex symptoms and treatment risks. Proton pump inhibitors and other therapies must be used cautiously, as cirrhosis interventions can worsen symptoms.

Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy and Diagnostic Adequacy Between Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided and Percutaneous Liver Biopsies: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

A liver biopsy (LB) is a crucial diagnostic tool for evaluating liver diseases and is traditionally performed percutaneously under ultrasound guidance (PC-LB). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as an alternative approach, offering potential advantages over conventional techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-LB using modern core biopsy needles with PC-LB. A comprehensive literature search identified nine studies involving 785 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis evaluated three primary endpoints: diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse event rates. The results indicated no significant difference in overall diagnostic adequacy (odds ratio: 0.446, 95% CI: 0.192-1.031) or diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio: 1.646, 95% CI: 0.224-12.09) between EUS-LB and PC-LB. Furthermore, the combined occurrence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two procedures (odds ratio: 0.653, 95% CI: 0.298-1.431). However, PC-LB demonstrated superiority in obtaining a higher number of complete portal tracts (mean difference: -0.985, 95% CI: -1.753 to -0.218), indicating better specimen quality. While both EUS-LB and PC-LB exhibited similar diagnostic performance and safety profiles, PC-LB provided higher-quality specimens, which may be advantageous in cases where accurate diagnosis and staging are critical, such as the evaluation of liver fibrosis. Clinicians should consider factors like specimen quality, procedural preferences, and local expertise when selecting the appropriate biopsy approach tailored to individual patient needs and clinical circumstances.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Liver Biopsy: Missing the Limitations in the Hype

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy is increasingly being performed at several centers. It is also being promoted at endoscopy conferences. The currently available literature does not support the routine use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy as results are either inferior or comparable to percutaneous liver biopsy. We discuss the technical limitations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy when compared to percutaneous liver biopsy and the comparative studies in the current review. The routine use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy should be discouraged as it may get less tissue, the complication rate is similar and it is more costly.

Endohepatology: The endoscopic armamentarium in the hand of the hepatologist

ABSTRACT

Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Endoscopic procedures in hepatology: Current trends and new developments

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

Distinct ways to perform a liver biopsy: The core technique setups and updated understanding of these modalities

There is dramatically increased incidence of several liver diseases worldwide; thus, an unmet need to diagnose and stage these pathological entities heralds the wide application of liver biopsy (LB) techniques. The ways of LB are versatile, including percutaneous LB, transjugular LB, and more recently an approach of minimal invasiveness, that is, EUS-guided LB (EUS-LB). In this review article, we come to the conclusion that EUS-LB may serve as a feasible, reliable, and safe alternative to percutaneous LB and transjugular LB in terms of improved diagnostic yield, excellent sampling performance, and controlled adverse events among patients with focal, infiltrative, and parenchymal liver diseases. Furthermore, extensive efforts have been made to optimize and refine several technical pillars within EUS-LB modality such as the selection of needle size/type, priming manner of biopsy needle, and choice of pass/actuation technique, all of which aim at obtaining better specimen quantity and quality. Another advantageous aspect and unique property pertinent to EUS-guided modality indicate that multiple screening, surveillance, and intervention procedures can be combined into one single endoscopic session. Accordingly, some pilot studies have clarified the clinical usefulness by integrating EUS-LB with simultaneous measurement of portal pressure gradient or examination of liver stiffness. However, more studies, in particular, randomized controlled trials or real-world evidence, are practically warranted to elucidate the validity and safety of EUS-LB as a regular/routine part of managing liver diseases.

Quantitative analysis of tissue area of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy specimens using 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle in patients with diffuse liver disease: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a novel liver biopsy technique. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB in comparison with percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB).

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of EUS-LB using a 19-gauge fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle compared with PLB using a spring-loaded 16-gauge needle in patients with diffuse liver disease at our hospital from April 2017 to December 2020. The primary outcomes included the total hepatic tissue surface area and the total number of portal tracts. Secondary outcomes included the success and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

Twenty patients each underwent EUS-LB and PLB. There was no statistical difference in the sum of liver tissue surface area (22 mm² vs 22.6 mm² , P = .910) and the total number of portal tracts (29 vs 25, P = .916). The success rate was 95% (19/20) for EUS-LB and 100% (20/20) for PLB (P = 1). There were two adverse events in the PLB group but none in the EUS-LB group (P = .487).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using FNB has an optimal tissue yield and success rate and is safe compared to PLB. Thus, EUS-LB may be a new alternative to PLB.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Prospective studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) to percutaneous LB (PC-LB) are scarce. We compared the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB with those of PC-LB in a prospective randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2021, patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with ≥11 complete portal tracts (CPTs). The sample size (n = 80) was calculated based on the assumption that 60% of those in the EUS-LB and 90% of those in the PC-LB group will have LB with ≥11 CPTs. The secondary outcomes included proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established, number of CPTs, pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity), duration of hospital stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled (median age, 53 years); 67.5% were female. Sixty percent of those in the EUS-LB and 75.0% of those in the PC-LB group met the primary outcome (P = 0.232). The median number of CPTs was higher in the PC-LB (17 vs 13; P = 0.031). The proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established was similar between the groups (92.5% [EUS-LB] vs 95.0% [PC-LB]; P = 1.0). Patients in the EUS-LB group had less pain severity (median Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, 2.0 vs 3.0; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs 4.0 hours; P < 0.0001) compared with the PC-LB group. No patient experienced a serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided liver biopsy was safe, effective, better tolerated, and associated with a shorter hospital stay.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of outcomes

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7-99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6-98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.

Haemostasis in cirrhosis: Understanding destabilising factors during acute decompensation

Hospitalised patients with decompensated cirrhosis are in a rebalanced haemostatic state due to a parallel decline in both pro- and anti-haemostatic pathways. However, this rebalanced haemostatic state is highly susceptible to perturbations and may easily tilt towards hypocoagulability and bleeding. Acute kidney injury, bacterial infections and sepsis, and progression from acute decompensation to acute-on-chronic liver failure are associated with additional alterations of specific haemostatic pathways and a higher risk of bleeding. Unfortunately, there is no single laboratory method that can accurately stratify an individual patient's bleeding risk and guide pre-procedural prophylaxis. A better understanding of haemostatic alterations during acute illness would lead to more rational and individualised management of hospitalised patients with decompensated cirrhosis. This review will outline the latest findings on haemostatic alterations driven by acute kidney injury, bacterial infections/sepsis, and acute-on-chronic liver failure in these difficult-to-treat patients and provide evidence supporting more tailored management of bleeding risk.

"Wet Heparin" and "Wet Saline" EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy Techniques Both Provide High Rates of Specimen Adequacy for Benign Parenchymal Liver Disease

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a viable mean to obtain core tissue, but the optimal tools and techniques are still an area of active investigation.

AIMS

(1) To compare tissue adequacy using "wet saline" (WS) vs. "wet heparin" (WH) technique (2) To compare post-procedure pain between EUS-LB and percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB).

METHODS

Retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent EUS-LB and PLB for benign parenchymal liver disease between May 2017 to October 2019 at a single tertiary veterans affairs medical center.

RESULTS

About 257 biopsies from 217 patients were included. Among the 102 EUS-LB specimens, 53 were obtained using WS technique and 49 were obtained using WH technique. Specimen adequacy was similar in both groups. Median Aggregate Specimen Length (ASL) and length of longest piece did not differ significantly between WS and WH groups. Clots were present more frequently in the WS group. Among patients who underwent EUS-LB of both right and left liver lobes, an adequate biopsy was obtained in 85% of patients in the WS group and 96% of patients in the WH group. The percentage of patients experiencing immediate post-procedure pain was higher with PLB compared to EUS-LB, but these results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both WS and WH EUS-LB techniques can offer high rates of specimen adequacy with low rates of pain and other post-procedure complications.

Diagnostic and interventional EUS in hepatology: An updated review

EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.

Update on endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a minimally-invasive alternative to the traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. Po-tentially, EUS-LB combines the advantages of percutaneous and transjugular liver biopsy in addressing focused sampling in addition to measuring portal pressure. Additionally, EUS-LB facilitates access to both the lobes of the liver which is not considered with the traditional percutaneous liver biopsy. Multiple studies have compared EUS-LB with conventional liver biopsy and reported comparable diagnostic yield, increased acquisition of complete portal tracts, and longer specimen length as compared to the traditional approaches. EUS-LB is associated with lesser post-procedural pain and shorter recovery time, while providing lower risk of complications when compared to traditional liver biopsy. Innovations in needle types, needle sizes and suction techniques have aimed at further optimizing the EUS-LB technique. This review article updates current literature with focus on the variations in the technique and equipment used for EUS-LB, and compares EUS-LB with traditional methods of liver biopsy.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an evolving technique. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the value of EUS-LB for parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Besides, we aimed to assess the influences of needle-related factors on the performance of EUS-LB. Additionally, we aimed to assess the influence of various criteria on specimen adequacy.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases up to 10 October 2021. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimens evaluated by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The secondary outcome was adverse events. Subgroup analyses were based on needle type, needle size, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle type. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on specimen adequacy based on two definition criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 33 studies were included. Pooled rates of diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimen by ROSE, adverse events were 95%, 84%, 93%, 3%. Subgroup analyses showed that Acquire needles generated higher diagnostic yield than SharkCore needles (99% vs. 88%, p = .047). Additionally, FNB needles demonstrated a higher rate of adverse events than FNA needles (6% vs. 1%, p = .028). Sensitivity analysis on specimen adequacy based on various criteria demonstrated that the specimen adequacy rate defined by the AASLD criterion was lower than that of the commonly-used criterion (37% vs. 84%, p = .001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB is effective and safe for liver biopsy. Acquire needles provide better specimens than SharkCore needles. FNB needles may increase the risk of adverse events compared with FNA needles. The AASLD criterion is harder to achieve than the commonly-used criterion.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Liver Disease: Where Do We Stand?

As the burden of liver disease in the general populace steadily increases, so does the need for both advanced diagnostic and treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound is a reliable diagnostic and therapeutic method that has an established role, foremost in pancreatobiliary pathology. This paper aims to summarize the growing role of endoscopic ultrasound in hepatology based on the search of the current literature. A number of applications of endoscopic ultrasound are reviewed, including both noninvasive methods and tissue acquisition in focal and diffuse liver disease, portal hypertension measurement, detection and management of gastric and esophageal varices, treatment of focal liver lesions and staging of pancreatobiliary malignancies, treatment of cystic and solid liver lesions, as well as liver abscess drainage. Both hepatologists and endoscopists should be aware of the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease. The inherent invasive nature of endoscopic examination limits its use to a targeted population identified using noninvasive methods. Endoscopic ultrasound is one the most versatile methods in gastroenterology, allowing immediate access with detection, sampling, and treatment of digestive tract pathology. Further expansion of its use in hepatology is immanent.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided parenchymal liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided liver biopsy is a novel technique to obtain adequate liver samples for diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. There are studies that have evaluated the feasibility and safety of EUS-guided parenchymal liver biopsy (EUS-LB), however, factors that can influence specimen quality are yet to be determined. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-LB and evaluate factors associated with specimen quality.

METHODS

We performed a detailed search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science™ databases to identify studies in which results of EUS-guided liver parenchymal biopsies were reported published up to July 2020. A random effects model was used to estimate pooled values (mean ± SE) for total specimen length (TSL) and complete portal tracts (CPT). Subgroup analyses were applied to find out the procedural factors associated with better specimen quality using Cochran's Q test. A total of 10 meta-analyses were done focusing on international studies. Total of 1326 patients who underwent EUS-LB. EUS-LBs performed for suspicion of parenchymal liver disease. Pooled mean values for TSL and CPT with subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with a total of 1326 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall pooled mean TSL and CPT were 45.3 ± 4.6 mm and 15.8 ± 1.5, respectively. In subgroup analysis, core biopsy needles proved to better in terms of CPT than fine-needle aspiration needles (18.4 vs 10.99, p = 0.003). FNB with slow-pull or suction technique provided a similar TSL (44.3 vs 53.9 mm, p = 0.40), however, slow-pull technique was better in terms of CPT (30 vs 14.6, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was present among the studies. Another limitation is the low number randomized control trials.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided parenchymal liver biopsy is a good alternative to other methods of liver sampling. Using FNB needles with a slow-pull technique can provide better results.

EUS-Guided versus Percutaneous Image-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Battle for Supremacy!

Liver biopsy has been the gold standard investigation for diagnosing and staging liver diseases. Image-guided percutaneous liver biopsy is a time-tested technique for obtaining the liver tissue in diffuse liver diseases. However, it is contraindicated in patients with ascites, altered mental status, skin infections, coagulopathy, and thrombocytopenia. It is associated with adverse events including postprocedure pain, bleeding, and pneumothorax. Transvenous liver biopsy can be performed in most cases with these contraindications, but it is an expensive technique and has its own inherent risks. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a relatively new technique that has shown promising results and seems to have a potential of replacing percutaneous liver biopsy. In this news and views, we discuss the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing EUS-guided and percutaneous techniques of liver biopsy. This RCT reported that percutaneous technique is superior in terms of diagnostic adequacy and total expenditure without any significant adverse effects compared with EUS-LB. EUS-LB is a promising technique that needs to be further explored in terms of appropriate situations in which it can be preferred over percutaneous or transvenous routes.

Hepatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma Diagnosed by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration

Primary hepatic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a rare malignancy with aggressive clinical features. This is the first case report of a primary hepatic SCC diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which is a reliable and safe procedure for the histopathological diagnosis of liver lesions, even if the percutaneous approach is difficult due to ascites or hypervascularity at the puncture site. A 52-year-old man presented to the emergency department of a tertiary referral hospital with right upper quadrant abdominal pain and abdominal distention. Given the laboratory data, a diagnosis of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) was made. Concurrently, an abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan revealed an 8 cm hypodense mass with delayed peripheral enhancement in the left hepatic lobe and paraaortic and perihepatic lymphadenopathy. As persistent ascites precluded percutaneous liver biopsy, we performed EUS-FNA of the liver mass, and the obtained specimen showed SCC. As otorhinolaryngological consultation and whole-body investigations, including chest CT, upper and lower endoscopy, and positron emission tomography CT, were all unremarkable except for the liver lesion and lymph nodes, a diagnosis of primary hepatic SCC with systemic lymph node metastasis was made. After treatment of SBP with antibiotics, we initiated chemotherapy concurrent with radiation therapy, adapted to his liver function. Radiation and three cycles of chemotherapy were not effective as the disease progressed, as seen on the follow-up CT scan, and the patient died of hepatic failure on the 134th day after diagnosis. In conclusion, EUS-FNA was a reliable method for tissue sampling in liver malignancies, particularly in selected patients with contraindications for percutaneous biopsy.

Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology

Liver biopsy is required when clinically important information about the diagnosis, prognosis or management of a patient cannot be obtained by safer means, or for research purposes. There are several approaches to liver biopsy but predominantly percutaneous or transvenous approaches are used. A wide choice of needles is available and the approach and type of needle used will depend on the clinical state of the patient and local expertise but, for non-lesional biopsies, a 16-gauge needle is recommended. Many patients with liver disease will have abnormal laboratory coagulation tests or receive anticoagulation or antiplatelet medication. A greater understanding of the changes in haemostasis in liver disease allows for a more rational, evidence-based approach to peri-biopsy management. Overall, liver biopsy is safe but there is a small morbidity and a very small mortality so patients must be fully counselled. The specimen must be of sufficient size for histopathological interpretation. Communication with the histopathologist, with access to relevant clinical information and the results of other investigations, is essential for the generation of a clinically useful report.

Endoscopic ultrasound in chronic liver disease

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a minimally invasive diagnostic and therapeutic modality with a number of established as well as evolving uses in patients with chronic liver disease. Compared to other diagnostic tools such as cross-sectional imaging or conventional endoscopy, EUS has been shown to increase diagnostic sensitivity and therapeutic success for many clinical scenarios and applications with a low rate of adverse events. In this review, we discuss and focus on the current and growing role of EUS in the evaluation and/or treatment of hepatobiliary masses, hepatic parenchymal disease, portal hypertension, esophageal and other varices, and indeterminate biliary strictures.