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

Endo-hepatology: Why should we do endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions to the liver that we could do through the skin?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions on the liver such as diffuse biopsy and portal pressure gradient measurement are emerging as potential alternatives to percutaneous procedures. The purpose of this editorial was to address all the indications that could potentially make an EUS-guided approach a possible alternative to the percutaneous procedures with respect to the proce-dures that could join the EUS examination such as upper endoscopy for gastro-esophageal varices, pancreaticobiliary investigation with EUS, and other potential advantages in terms of patient safety. The issue of a holistic gastroenterologist approach was also discussed along with the potential for developing clinical research.

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.

Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Status and Future Frontiers

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has fueled remarkable advancements in the field of therapeutic procedures, revolutionizing minimally invasive interventions for a diverse range of conditions. This review highlights the latest breakthroughs and advancements in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, showcasing its potential to transform patient care.

Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis in Asians: Current Perspectives and Future Directions

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a subset of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which, apart from excess fat in the liver, may be characterised by some level of inflammatory infiltration and fibrogenesis, occasionally progressing to liver cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of the current review is to elucidate the rising prevalence, the role of microbiome and genetics in pathogenesis, diagnostic challenges, and novel treatment alternatives for NASH. Newer diagnostic techniques are being developed since using liver biopsy in a larger population is not a reasonable option and is primarily restricted to clinical research, at least in developing countries. Besides these technical challenges, another important factor leading to deviation from guideline practice is the lack of health insurance coverage in countries like India. It leads to reluctance on the part of physicians and patients to delay required tests to curb out-of-pocket expenditure. There is no cure for NASH, with liver transplantation remaining the last option for those who progress to end-stage liver disease (ESLD) or are detected with early-stage HCC. Thus, lifestyle modification remains the only viable option for many, but compliance and long-term adherence remain major challenges. In obese individuals, bariatric surgery and weight reduction have shown favourable results. In patients with less severe obesity, endoscopic bariatric metabolic therapies (EBMT) are rapidly emerging as less invasive therapies. However, access and acceptability remain poor for these weight reduction methods. Therefore, intense research is being conducted for potential newer drug classes with several agents currently in phase II or III of clinical development. Some of these have demonstrated promising results, such as a reduction in hepatic fat content, and attenuation of fibrosis with an acceptable tolerability profile in phase II studies. The developments in the management of NASH have been fairly encouraging. Further well-designed long-term prospective studies should be undertaken to generate evidence with definitive results.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Comparison of Adverse Events of Different Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Methods: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

The efficacy of new generation endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy needles has been promising in recent years. Yet, comparing these needles’ diagnostic yield and safety to conventional needles is not well-known. Our study aims to compare the adverse events of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) with different types of needles, including FNA needles, FNB needles with a Franseen tip and FNB needles with a reverse bevel. Furthermore, we will analyze the risk factors, including tumor vascularity, different needle types, and the underlying disease, which may impact the safety of the procedures. From May 2014 to December 2021, 192 consecutive EUS-TAs were performed on pancreatic and peripancreatic lesions in our hospital using different types of FNA and FNB needles. We retrospectively reviewed the data and identified the risk factors for EUS-TA-related complications. As a result, the hypervascular tumor is a significant risk factor for adverse events in our multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 4.96 (95% CI 1.33–18.47), while liver cirrhosis is one of the risk factors for adverse events during EUS-TA, with an odds ratio of 5.3 (95% CI 1.1–25.6). However, the risk of adverse events did not increase using Franseen-tip needles, compared to conventional FNA or FNB needles with a reverse bevel. In conclusion, we must be more cautious in patients with liver cirrhosis and hypervascular tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, when performing EUS-guided tissue acquisition.

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.

EUS-guided fine-needle liver biopsy in pediatric patients using a modified technique with one-pass, one-actuation wet suction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Liver biopsy (LB) can be a valuable tool to determine the etiology of pediatric liver disease. There is limited data of the role of EUS-LB in children. We have evaluated the efficacy and the safety of a modified technique (M)LB in high risk or obese children. Additionally, we aimed to compare the tissue yield of EUS-(M)LB and percutaneous (PC) approach.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis comparing EUS-(M)LB and PC-LB in children at a tertiary referral center. All consecutive children referred for PC-LB and EUS-LB who had an unexplained liver test abnormality after exclusion of biliary disorders from march-2017 to August-2018 were included. EUS-(M)LB consists of a one pass wet suction technique using a 19-gauche core needle. Comparison between total specimen length (TSL) and number of complete portal triads (CPTs) between the groups were performed.

RESULTS

There were 28 EUS-(M)LB and 28 PC-LB pediatric cases. The median (IQR) age was 14.5 years (13.4-16). The median TSL was 8.6 (5.8-9.6) in EUS-(M)LB cases and 7 cm (7-9) in PC-LB cases (P =0.788). The maximum intact specimen was 2.8 cm (EUS-(M)LB) and 1.6 cm (PC-LB) (P =0.009). The mean (SD) number of CPTs per sample was 28.2 (7.3) and 11.6 (2.1), respectively (P =0.001). Adverse events included once case of self-limited abdominal pain in the PC-LB group.

CONCLUSION

EUS-(M)LB has the potential to be a safe and effective alternative diagnostic modality, at when compared to PC-LB, to evaluate children with unexplained liver test abnormalities who undergo EUS to evaluate biliary disorders.

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.