Use of pethidine for percutaneous liver biopsy - a randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind study

Incidence of Complications from Percutaneous Biopsy in Chronic Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Approaches to liver biopsy have changed over the past decade in patients with chronic liver disease.

AIMS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the incidence of all complications and technical failure associated with percutaneous liver biopsy.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for cohort studies reporting on complications resulting from liver biopsy published between 2010 and 2020. Studies on participants of any age and sex, who underwent any percutaneous biopsy for non-focal liver disease, were selected. All events except mild pain, minor hematoma, vasovagal episodes, fever and fistula were defined as major complications. Random-effect model meta-analyses with and without covariates were performed, to examine the effect of publication year, patient characteristics, outcome collection, and biopsy type on incidences.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies reporting on complications resulting from percutaneous liver biopsy procedures (n = 64,356). Incidence of major complications was 2.44% (95% CI 0.85, 6.75), with mortality at 0.01% (95% CI 0.00, 0.11), hospitalization at 0.65% (95% CI 0.38, 1.11), major bleeding at 0.48% (95% CI 0.22, 1.06), and moderate/severe pain at 0.34% (95% CI 0.08, 1.37). Minor complications at 9.53% (95% CI 3.68, 22.5) were mainly pain at 12.9% (95% CI 5.34, 27.9). Technical failure was high at 0.91% (95% CI 0.27, 3.00). Decreasing patient age significantly increased incidence of hospitalization and major bleeding (P < 0.0001). Hospitalization incidence also significantly increased with disease severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of major (2.4%) and minor (9.5%) complications, and technical failure (0.91%) in percutaneous liver biopsies continues.

What recovery position should patients adopt after percutaneous liver biopsy?

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is an invasive procedure used for the assessment of liver diseases. The patient's recovery position after the PLB differs among hospitals and departments. This study aims to evaluate adverse events and patient acceptability according to the recovery position adopted after the PLB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From September 2014 to March 2017, patients submitted to PLB were randomly assigned to a recovery position arm: right-side position (RRP), dorsal position (DRP), or combined position. A validated numerical rating scale was used to evaluate the level of pain and the overall acceptability of the PLB experience.

RESULTS

Ninety (27 patients in RRP, 33 in DRP and 30 in combined position arm) patients were included in the study. There were no differences between the three groups regarding demographic and clinical parameters, except for the number of previous biopsies - higher in the combined group (P=0.03). No major adverse events occurred. Minor complications described were pain (36.7% of patients), vasovagal reaction (2.2%) and nauseas/vomit (3.3%). Pain level and pain duration did not differ significantly between groups. Pain occurred more often in women (P=0.04) and younger patients (P=0.02). The number of passages, operator and previous biopsy did not influence the occurrence of pain. The RRP group considered the procedure less acceptable than the DRP group (P=0.001) or the combined group (P=0.002). There were no differences between the last two arms.

CONCLUSION

Although RRP is the most frequently used position, it appears to be less acceptable without any protective role in terms of adverse events.

Pain in percutaneous liver core-needle biopsy: a randomized trial comparing the intercostal and subcostal approaches

PURPOSE

Effective pain control during and after percutaneous core needle liver biopsy is important with regard to ethical considerations and patient comfort. In this randomized double-blind study, we compared post-biopsy pain in the patients undergoing liver core-needle biopsy using either subcostal or intercostal approaches.

METHODS

All patients referred for ultrasound-guided CNLB between July 2017 and January 2018 to our interventional radiology department were randomized into two groups. Biopsy was performed through intercostal approach in the first group and through subcostal approach in the second group. The intensity of pain 0, 2, and 4 h after the procedure was compared in two groups using a 100-mm visual analogue scale. All biopsies were performed without procedural IV sedation. If patients' discomfort  demanded administration of IV analgesics during or after the procedure, then the patients were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

In patients without routine procedural IV sedation, there was no significant difference in the pain level between the intercostal and subcostal groups immediately after the procedure (p = 0.055), but we found a significant difference in the pain level between the two groups 2 (7.5 mm, p = 0.001) and 4 (2 mm, p = 0.001) h after the procedure.

CONCLUSION

The minimum amount of change in the VAS score that is considered clinically important is 13 mm on a 100-mm scale. Pain differences at 2 and 4 h in the two groups in this study were statistically but not clinically significant. Therefore, the authors suggest the use of subcostal route for ultrasound-guided liver biopsy whenever possible, but the results do not warrant the routine use of post-procedure analgesics in whom biopsy is performed via intercostal route.