Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using a 22-G fine needle biopsy needle: a prospective study

Comparing a 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle with a 22-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle for EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) sampling is being increasingly used. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare specimen adequacy of a 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle with a 22-gauge FNB Franseen tip needle for EUS-LB sampling.

METHODS

Forty-two consecutive patients referred for EUS-LB sampling were prospectively randomized to a 19-gauge or 22-gauge FNB needle. When the specimen with the 22-gauge needle was macroscopically inadequate, an additional pass with the 19-gauge needle was done. Bilobar EUS-LB sampling was performed with heparinized wet suction using 1 pass and 3 actuations per lobe. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables.

RESULTS

Biopsy sampling was performed for abnormal liver enzymes in 95.5% of patients (57% women; average age, 51 years). Five patients undergoing sampling with the 22-gauge FNB needle had macroscopically inadequate specimens and required additional biopsy sampling with the 19-gauge FNB needle. Mean preprocessing length of the longest tissue core was 21.5 ± 6.3 mm with a 19-gauge FNB needle compared with 9.4 ± 5.5 mm with the 22-gauge FNB needle (P < .001). Postprocessing specimens were significantly longer with 19-gauge than with 22-gauge FNB needles (17.4 mm vs 6.8, P < .001). There were no adverse events, and postprocedure pain and discomfort was similar in both groups (14% for 19-gauge vs 10% for 22-gauge, P = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver core biopsy sampling using the 19-gauge FNB needle is superior to the 22-gauge FNB needle in terms of length of longest core and aggregate specimen length. Considerably more fragmentation of the 22-gauge cores occurs during tissue processing. No increased postprocedure pain or AEs were found with the 19-gauge needle. A 19-gauge FNB needle is preferred to the 22-gauge FNB needle for EUS-LB. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04806607.).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of focal liver lesion

In patients with liver tumors, the histopathology examination can assist in diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and therapeutic management strategy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition using fine needle aspiration (FNA) or more newly fine needle biopsy (FNB) is a well-developed technique in order to evaluate and differentiate the liver masses. The goal of the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is to provide an accurate sample for a histopathology examination. Therefore, malignant tumors such as hepatocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and liver metastasis or benign tumors such as liver adenoma, focal hyperplastic nodular tumors and cystic lesions can be accurately diagnosed using EUS-guided tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB using 19 or 22 Ga needle provide longer samples and a higher diagnostic accuracy in patients with liver masses when compared with EUS-FNA. Few data are available on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB when compared with percutaneously, ultrasound, computer tomography or transjugulary-guided liver biopsies. This review will discuss the EUS-guided tissue acquisition options in patients with liver tumors and its efficacy and safety in providing accurate samples. The results of the last studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy with other conventional techniques are presented. The EUS-guided tissue acquisition using FNB can be a suitable technique in suspected liver lesions in order to provide an accurate histopathology diagnosis, especially for those who require endoscopy.

Diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In hepatology, the clinical use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has experienced a notable increase in recent times. These applications range from the diagnosis to the treatment of various liver diseases. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes the evidence for the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS in liver diseases.

AIM

To examine and summarize the current available evidence of the possible roles of the EUS in making a suitable diagnosis in liver diseases as well as the therapeutic accuracy and efficacy.

METHODS

PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were extensively searched until October 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In addition, statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software.

RESULTS

Overall, 45 articles on EUS were included (28 on diagnostic role and 17 on therapeutic role). Pooled analysis demonstrated that EUS diagnostic tests had an accuracy of 92.4% for focal liver lesions (FLL) and 96.6% for parenchymal liver diseases. EUS-guided liver biopsies with either fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy had low complication rates when sampling FLL and parenchymal liver diseases (3.1% and 8.7%, respectively). Analysis of data from four studies showed that EUS-guided liver abscess had high clinical (90.7%) and technical success (90.7%) without significant complications. Similarly, EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of gastric varices (GV) have high technical success (98%) and GV obliteration rate (84%) with few complications (15%) and rebleeding events (17%).

CONCLUSION

EUS in liver diseases is a promising technique with the potential to be considered a first-line therapeutic and diagnostic option in selected cases.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using a single-pass, slow-pull technique with a 19-G Franseen tip fine-needle biopsy needle: A prospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is considered to be safe and effective. Commonly a 19-G fine-needle aspiration or biopsy needle is used. But, the results vary with different techniques that are used. Herein, we report the results of liver biopsy with a single-pass, three actuations (1:3) using the slow-pull technique.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 50 consecutive patients with indications for liver biopsy underwent EUS-LB with a 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle from both right and left lobes. The primary outcome was the adequacy of the specimen for histological diagnosis. Total specimen length (TSL), longest specimen length (LSL), complete portal tracts (CPTs) and comparison of these outcomes between the left lobe and right lobe specimens were secondary outcomes. Adverse events (AEs) were also measured during this study.

RESULTS

Adequate tissue for histological diagnosis was obtained in all 50 patients (100%). The median number of CPTs was 32.5 (range, 11-58), while the median of TSL was 58 mm (range, 35-190) and the median LSL was 15 mm (range, 5-40). There was no significant difference in CPTs, TSL and LSL between left and right lobe biopsies. There was no major complication; one of the patients (2%) had bleed from the duodenal puncture site, which was managed endoscopically without the need for blood transfusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using a 19-gauge Franseen tip needle with a single pass, three actuation (1:3) and slow-pull technique provides adequate tissue yield and has a good safety profile.

EUS-guided left lobe liver biopsy: Safer modality with similar diagnostic yield as right lobe: a pilot study

Background and study aims  Percutaneous liver biopsy is traditionally done on the right lobe of the liver. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) can be performed on either the left or right lobe or as a combined bi-lobar biopsy. Earlier studies did not compare the benefit of bi-lobar biopsies to single-lobe biopsy for reaching a tissue diagnosis. The current study compared the degree of agreement of pathological diagnosis between the left lobe of the liver compared to right-lobe and with bi-lobar biopsy. Patients and methods  Fifty patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. EUS-LB with a 22G core needle was performed separately on both the liver lobes. Three pathologists, who were blinded to the site of biopsy independently reviewed the liver biopsies. Sample adequacy, safety, and concordance of pathological diagnosis between left- and right-lobe biopsy of the liver were analyzed. Results  The pathological diagnosis was made in 96 % of patients. Specimen lengths from the left lobe and the right lobe were 2.31 ± 0.57 cm and 2.28 ± 0.69 cm, respectively ( P  = 0.476). The respective number of portal tracts were 11.84 ± 6.71 versus 9.58 ± 7.14; P  = 0.106. Diagnosis between the two lobes showed substantial (κ = 0.830) concordance. Left-lobe (κ value 0.878) and right-lobe (κ = 0.903) biopsies showed no difference when compared with bi-lobar biopsies. Adverse events were observed in two patients, both of whom had biopsies of the right lobe. Conclusions  EUS-guided left-lobe liver biopsy is safer than right-lobe biopsy with similar diagnostic yield.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: Prospective Head-to-Head Comparison

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) from focal liver lesions are indicated in selected cases, but there has been no previous comparison of needle types of the same size. The aim of our study was to compare the histologic diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of cores obtained with EUS-FNB needles in contrast to those obtained with FNA needles in focal liver lesions. This prospective one-center study included patients with left lobe hepatic focal lesions with contraindications for percutaneous liver biopsy or need for EUS for concomitant lesions. Each patient had one pass of 22G EUS-FNB (Franseen) needle and one pass of 22G EUS-FNA in a crossover manner, without macroscopic on-site evaluation. Each sample was analyzed separately for histologic adequacy and diagnosis. The final diagnosis was based on histology results or on imaging follow-up in the case of negative biopsies. The EUS-FNB samples (n = 30) were found to be more adequate for histologic analysis, with more cellularity and longer tissue aggregates than the EUS-FNA samples (n = 30). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was 100%, whereas that of EUS-FNA was 86.7% (p = 0.039). No post-procedure complications were noted. The 22G EUS-FNB needle proved superior to 22G EUS-FNA in terms of tissue acquisition diagnostic accuracy and histologic adequacy in focal liver lesions.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to percutaneous and trans-jugular approaches for hepatic tissue acquisition. It has shown superior diagnostic yield for the targeted approach of focal lesions, less sampling variability, improved patient comfort, and safety profile. These advantages have contributed to the increased use of EUS-LB as a technique for obtaining liver tissue. In this review, we provide an update on the recent evidence of EUS-LB for the evaluation of liver disease.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Evaluation of Portal Pressure

Portal hypertension is a complex syndrome with multiple clinical manifestations that develop in a variety of conditions and diseases. The spectrum of portal hypertension manifestations is wide and dependent on the physiologic site of increased portal resistance (pre-, post-, and sinusoidal or intrahepatic), as well as the presence of hepatocellular dysfunction.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the field of hepatology: Recent advances and future trends

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases has been expanding. The imaging or intervention for various liver diseases has primarily been the domain of radiologists. With the advances in EUS, the domain of endosonologists is rapidly expanding in the field of hepatology. The ability to combine endoscopy and sonography in one hybrid device is a unique property of EUS, together with the ability to bring its probe/transducer near the liver, the area of interest. Its excellent spatial resolution and ability to provide real-time images coupled with several enhancement techniques, such as contrast-enhanced (CE) EUS, have facilitated the growth of EUS. The concept of “Endo-hepatology” encompasses the wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are now gradually becoming feasible for managing various liver diseases. Diagnostic advancements can enable a wide array of techniques from elastography and liver biopsy for liver parenchymal diseases, to CE-EUS for focal liver lesions to portal pressure measurements for managing various liver conditions. Similarly, therapeutic advancements range from EUS-guided eradication of varices, drainage of bilomas and abscesses to various EUS-guided modalities of liver tumor management. We provide a comprehensive review of all the different diagnostic and therapeutic EUS modalities available for the management of various liver diseases. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

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.

Single-pass 1-needle actuation versus single-pass 3-needle actuation technique for EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: a randomized prospective trial (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Several reports have validated EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling (EUS-LB) as safe and effective. Nineteen-gauge EUS aspiration (FNA) or core (fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) needles are used, but different needle techniques can yield variable outcomes. Some data show that 1 pass (single liver puncture) with 1 actuation (1 to-and-fro needle movement) may be enough to obtain a satisfactory specimen. However, there has not been a head-to-head comparison of single versus multiple needle actuations for EUS-LB.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized trial of EUS-LB in 40 patients comparing tissue yields and adequacy using 1 pass, 1 actuation (1:1) versus 1 pass 3 actuations (1:3) of an FNB needle. The primary outcome was number of complete portal triads (CPTs). Secondary outcomes were length of the longest piece, aggregate specimen length, number of cores >9 mm, and adverse events (AEs). Computerized randomization determined selection (either 1:1 or 1:3 with fanning technique). Sample lengths were measured before pathologic processing.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar demographics and indications for EUS-LB. All biopsy samples were adequate for pathologic interpretation. Compared with 1:1, biopsy sampling with 1:3 yielded more CPTs (mean [standard deviation], 17.25 [6.2] vs 24.5 [9.88]; P < .008) and longer aggregate specimen length (6.89 cm [1.86] vs 12.85 cm [4.02]; P < .001). AEs were not statistically different between the techniques. No severe AEs were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-LB using the 1:3 technique produced longer liver cores with more CPTs than the 1:1 technique with an equivalent safety profile. Two needle passes are more likely to provide tissue adequacy according to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000040101.).

Comparison of Two Specialized Histology Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Liver Biopsy: A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to percutaneous liver biopsy. The optimal needle device and technique for EUS-LB is still evolving. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two second-generation 19G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (Franseen- and Fork-tip) devices for EUS-LB.

METHODS

This is a repeated-measure crossover study with a prospectively maintained cohort of patients. We performed EUS-LB with a one-pass and single-actuation method using two 19G FNB needles in 22 consecutive patients between 10/2018 and 9/2019. Patients were randomized to left vs right liver lobes to be biopsied as well as the needle sequence. The specimens obtained were evaluated for adequacy for histologic diagnosis. The primary outcome was number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), post-fix aggregate, and longest specimen length. Secondary outcomes were prefix aggregate specimen length and the specimen adequacy judged by two expert pathologists.

RESULTS

A total of 44 liver biopsies were performed in 22 patients. The CPTs were higher in the Franseen-tip needle group compared to the Fork-tip needle group (14.4 vs 9.5, p = 0.043). Post-fix aggregate specimen length (44.9 mm vs 34.6 mm, p = 0.097), the post-fix longest specimen length (19.9 mm vs 13.7 mm, p = 0.175), and prefix aggregate specimen length (51.7 mm vs 45 mm, p = 0.265) were not significantly different. Both needles showed similarly high histologic adequacy (100% vs 95.5%, p = 0.312). Interestingly, the right of the liver showed higher yield of CPTs with both needles (Franseen, 16.2 vs. 12.8, p = 0.003, the Fork-tip, 12.8 vs. 7.0, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided liver biopsy using the 19G Franseen-tip needle may provide more CPTs than 19G Fork-tip needle on a single-pass, single-actuation comparison.

A Comparative Study of 22G versus 19G Needles for EUS-Guided Biopsies for Parenchymal Liver Disease: Are Thinner Needles Better?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data on comparative efficacy of various available endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) needles are limited. We sought to compare the performance of a novel Franseen-tip 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) device to that of 19G needle platforms for liver parenchyma.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for EUS and suspected to have hepatic parenchymal disease underwent EUS-LB using different EUS needles and were included in this retrospective study. Two blinded expert liver pathologists independently reviewed and reported on: total number of tissue fragments, length of longest fragment, number of complete and incomplete portal tracts (CPT and IPT), and specimen adequacy.

RESULTS

A 22G Franseen-tip needle (A) was used in 30 patients; 19G Tru-Cut needle (B) in 50 patients; 19G reverse beveled non-Tru-Cut needle (C) in 27 patients; and a 19G flexible non-Tru-Cut needle (D) in 28 patients. In the order of needles, A, B, C and D,  > 10 tissue fragments were obtained in 100%, 6%, 82%, and 96% samples, the mean number of CPTs was 6.9; 3.0; 7.3; and 16.9, length of longest fragment was 3.8, 4. 7, 3.9, and 8.4 mm, and specimen adequacy was 66.7%, 46%, 82.1%, and 81.5%, respectively. A positive correlation was obtained between number of CPTs and length of longest fragment in samples accrued by 19G needles.

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB specimens using 22G Franseen-tip needle appear highly fragmented, leading to inferior specimen adequacy compared to 19G non-Tru-Cut needles. We also report on using length of longest fragment as an additional criterion for specimen adequacy as it positively correlates with number of CPTs standard.

Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Status and Future Directions

The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure has resulted in a paradigm shift toward endoscopic management of disease states that previously required percutaneous or surgical approaches. The past few years have seen additional techniques and devices that have enabled endoscopists to expand its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Some of these techniques initially were reported more than a decade ago; however, with further device development and refinement in techniques there is potential for expanding the application of these techniques and new technologies to a broader group of interventional gastroenterologists. Lack of formalized training, devices, and prospective data regarding their use in addition to a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors impeding the growth of the field of interventional EUS. In April 2019, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology conducted its annual Tech Summit and a key session focused on interventional EUS. This article is a White Paper generated from the conference, discusses the published literature pertaining to the topic of interventional EUS, and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of interventional EUS techniques into clinical practice. Three primary areas of interventional EUS are addressed: (1) EUS-guided access; (2) EUS-guided tumor ablation; and (3) endohepatology. There was general agreement among participants on several key components. The introduction of these novel interventions requires better tools, more data on safety/outcomes, and improved training for endoscopists. Participants also agreed that widespread implementation and use of these techniques will require support from Gastrointestinal Societies and other key stakeholders including payers. Continued work by the Gastrointestinal Societies and manufacturers to provide training programs, appropriate equipment/work environments, and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new techniques is essential for growing the field of interventional EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided hepatic interventions

Intervention for liver disease has predominantly been performed through the percutaneous approach. However, as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) applications have expanded, there have emerged various EUS-guided interventions for liver disease, a space we call "Endo-Hepatology". EUS-guided liver biopsy can be considered the "forerunner" of Endo-Hepatology and has become a clinical option for patients requiring histologic diagnosis and staging of their liver disease. EUS also enables direct access to the portal vein. Subsequently, many procedures are being explored, such as angiography, measurement of the portosystemic pressure gradient, portal vein sampling to detect cancer cell or DNA, and EUS-guided transhepatic intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation. Since the transducer is close to the liver, especially the left and caudate lobes, EUS can be used as a rescue when the percutaneous approach is not favorable and EUS-guided treatments of liver tumor, cyst and abscess have been reported. This review summarizes the available studies of EUS-guided intervention in the liver.

Hemorrhagic shock necessitating resuscitation and damage control surgery after needle biopsy: A report of two cases

Percutaneous needle biopsy is minimally invasive and widely performed. Bleeding is an important complication of needle biopsy. Because the wound created by the needle is small, the recognition of bleeding in the body may be delayed, and this delay can lead to hemorrhagic shock and death. We report two cases of hemorrhagic shock in which the trauma triad of death developed after needle biopsy and the patients required resuscitation and damage control surgery. Needle biopsy is less invasive but cannot stop bleeding, and so surgery should be considered to ensure hemostasis in a compromised patient.

Safety and adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided random liver biopsy in comparison with transjugular and percutaneous approaches

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an accepted technique for tissue acquisition. Traditionally, random LB has been performed with percutaneous (PC-LB) and transjugular (TJ-LB) approaches. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety profile and efficacy of EUS-LB, PC-LB, and TJ-LB. Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis was performed at a tertiary academic medical center. Inclusion criteria for analysis were all adult patients who underwent EUS-LB since inception and TJ-LB/PC-LB over a 3-year span (June 2016 to June 2019). The primary outcome assessed was any adverse events. Secondary outcomes included technical success resulting in tissue acquisition and diagnostic adequacy of the sample for histologic analysis. Results  A total of 513 patients were included for analysis. There were 135 EUS-LB, 287 PC-LB, and 91 TJ-LB. The most common indication for LB was abnormal liver function tests. For the primary outcome, the rate of adverse events was low with five reported (< 1 %). There were two in the EUS-LB group, two in the PC-LB group, and one in TJ-LB group, and this difference was not statistically significant ( P  = 0.585). The technical success rate was 100 % in each group. The rate of diagnostic adequacy was 100 % in TJ-LB group and 99 % in both EUS-LB and PC-LB groups. This difference was not statistically significant ( P  = 1.000). The most common histologic finding was non-specific changes (33.7 %) followed by non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (15.60 %). Conclusion  In comparison with PC-LB and TJ-LB, EUS-LB has comparable safety profile, technical success rate, and diagnostic adequacy. EUS-LB should be considered as an option for random liver biopsy.

Superior Specimen and Diagnostic Accuracy with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsies Using 19 G versus 22 G Core Needles

Background/Aims

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an effective and safe method of procuring liver tissue. The aims of this study were to assess and compare the outcomes and tissue adequacy of a single-pass, single-actuation, wet suction technique between 19 G and 22 G needles in patients undergoing EUS-LB.

Methods

We performed a prospective case series study of 20 patients undergoing EUS-LB at a single center between September 2017 and April 2020. The primary objective was to evaluate differences in sample adequacy via a single actuation wet suction technique between a 19 G core needle and a 22 G core needle. Adequacy was gauged by cumulative core biopsy length and the number of portal tracts visualized.

Results

The 19 G needle provided a longer core length (2.5 cm vs. 1.2 cm, p<0.0001), more complete portal tracts (5.8 vs. 1.7, p<0.0001), more total tracts (8.8 vs. 3, p<0.0001), and a longer, intact, fragment length (0.75 cm vs. 0.32 cm, p<0.0006). The 19 G needle was superior in providing adequate (60% vs. 5%, p<0.001) and diagnostic pathologic samples (85% vs. 10%, p<0.001).

Conclusions

A single-pass, single-actuation, wet suction technique using a 19 G needle is superior to that using a 22 G needle for tissue acquisition and sample adequacy in EUS-LB.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using a 20-gauge fine needle biopsy needle with the wet-heparinized suction technique

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the histological adequacy of the liver tissue specimens obtained with a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle and the secondary aim was to test the safety endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy with a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle with the wet-heparinized suction technique.

METHODS

Forty patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy were included in the study. A 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle was used with the wet-heparinized suction technique to make one pass each from the left and the right lobe. Histologic characteristics of the specimens were evaluated, and patients were observed after the procedure in order to intervene in case of an adverse event.

RESULTS

The median longest core fragment was 22 mm from the left lobe [first quartile-third quartile 20-25 mm, interquartile range (IQR) 5 mm], and 20 mm (first quartile-third quartile 17-22 mm, IQR 5 mm) from the right lobe. The median cumulative core length per patient was 103 mm (91-108 mm, IQR 17 mm). The median cumulative number of complete portal triads per patient was 69.50 (52.25-82.25, IQR 30). The rate of diagnostic yield was 100%. Post-biopsy self-limiting abdominal pain was reported in two patients (5%). The most common histologic diagnosis was fatty liver disease (25%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy with the wet-heparinized suction technique using a 20-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle is a safe alternative method in clinical practice.

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.

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.

A State-of-the-Art Review on the Evolving Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Liver Diseases Diagnosis

Liver diseases are amongst the most common diseases worldwide and manifest as a parenchymatic and/or biliary injury due to several causes as well as focal liver lesions, ranging from benign to malignant ones. The diagnosis of liver diseases is based mainly on biochemical and advanced imaging studies and, when required, on liver biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), which combines endoscopy and ultrasonography, is one of the main examination techniques used in gastroenterology as it is applied to evaluate abnormalities in the lumen of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract and to define pancreatic and hepato-biliary features, often in chronic patients. Given its high spatial resolution and its proximity to the liver, EUS is gaining popularity in the diagnostic work up of liver diseases. This is a comprehensive overview of the current literature on the diagnostic indications for EUS use in patients with liver diseases. We performed a MEDLINE\PubMed and Embase search, and all articles that were relevant, after reviewing abstracts, were assessed and the full text was analyzed to extract data regarding technical success, diagnostic yield, bioptic characteristics, and complications rate. EUS-guided imaging and biopsy techniques in liver diseases have shown consistent favorable promising results among the reports through the literature, with an excellent diagnostic yield and safety profile, especially in the context of focal lesions and portal hypertension. The application of EUS in the diagnosis of liver diseases is a promising technique and should be considered as a first-line therapeutic option in selected cases.

Current status of newer generation endoscopic ultrasound core needles in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal lesions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is now an imperative technique for the diagnosis of multiple diseases in the gastrointestinal tract and nearby structures. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and fine needle biopsy via dedicated FNB needles (EUS-FNB) are two standard-essential tools for tissue acquisition. The choice of needle type is an important factor determining appropriate tissue acquisition. Multiple studies have compared EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB on different lesions also there are several studies evaluated different needles in terms of sampling adequacy and cytological and histological accuracy. Prior studies comparing prior-generation FNB needles to FNA did not show an increased diagnostic yield with FNB. However, the newer-generation needles have demonstrated enhanced performance compared with their predecessors. As they may provide a large amount of tissue for the cytological and histological evaluation, rapid onsite specimen evaluation (ROSE), and immunohistochemical and molecular analyses, which may be very important for targeted therapy. In this review, we discuss current evidence and literature on the use of the newer generation needles for pancreatic and non-pancreatic lesions.

EUS-guided fine-needle core liver biopsy with a modified one-pass, one-actuation wet suction technique comparing two types of EUS core needles

Background and study aims  We compared the diagnostic yield and specimen adequacy in EUS-guided parenchymal biopsies between two types of EUS 19 G core needles. Patients and methods  This is a retrospective study of 420 patients at two tertiary medical centers in Florida with unexplained abnormal liver associated tests were referred for EUS evaluation of biliary obstruction and pancreatic pathology. EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) was performed at the same session after biliary obstruction was excluded. We compared intact specimen length (ISL), total specimen length (TSL), complete portal triads (CPT) and adverse events (AE). Welch's T and Tukey tests were used for ISL, TSL and CPT. Results  A total of 210 patients underwent EUS-LB using a Franseen needle, 210 patients using a fork-tip needle. Median patient age was 52 years (15.63) and 238 (56.7 %) were female. The fork-tip needle had a mean ISL of 2.7 (1.1 SD) cm, TSL of 6 cm (2.1 SD), and mean 19.5 CPT (8.5 SD) Abdominal pain occurred in 35 patients (17 %) post-procedure and was managed with supportive care. Two patients required intravenous (IV) narcotic administration. Subcapsular hematomas occurred in 1 (0.5 %) patients. The Franseen needle had a mean ISL of 3.1 cm (1.3 SD), TSL of 6.5 cm (2.6 SD), and mean of 24 CPT (8.8 SD). Abdominal pain occurred in four patients (2 %) post-procedure, which resolved in all patients after IV narcotic administration. Subcapsular hematomas occurred in 1 (0.5 %) and bile leak in 1(0.4 %) patients. Conclusions  Use of the Franseen needle resulted in better liver core samples than that obtained with a fork-tip needle.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy: Recent evidence

Liver biopsy (LB) is an essential tool in diagnosing, evaluating and managing various diseases of the liver. As such, histopathological results are critical as they establish or aid in diagnosis, provide information on prognosis, and guide the appropriate selection of medical therapy for patients. Indications for LB include evaluation of persistent elevation of liver chemistries of unclear etiology, diagnosis of chronic liver diseases such as Wilson's disease, autoimmune hepatitis, small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis, work up of fever of unknown origin, amyloidosis and more. Traditionally, methods of acquiring liver tissue have included percutaneous LB (PCLB), transjugular LB (TJLB) or biopsy taken surgically via laparotomy or laparoscopy. However, traditional methods of LB may be inferior to newer methods. Additionally, PCLB and TJLB carry higher risks of adverse events and complications. More recently, endoscopic ultrasound guided LB (EUS-LB) has evolved as an alternative method of tissue sampling that has proven to be safe and effective, with limited adverse events. Compared to PC and TJ routes, EUS-LB may also have a greater diagnostic yield of tissue, be superior for a targeted approach of focal lesions, provide higher quality images and allow for greater patient comfort. These advantages have contributed to the increased use of EUS-LB as a technique for obtaining liver tissue. Herein, we provide a review of the recent evidence of EUS-LB for liver disease.