Safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage of liver abscess: A single-center experience

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Drainage of Caudate Lobe Abscess: A Single Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Liver abscess is usually treated with medical therapy. Few patients require drainage of the collection due to large size, certain high-risk location or rupture of the collection. Percutaneous drainage is most commonly used modality for the drainage of such collection. However, caudate lobe poses a unique difficulty in percutaneous drainage due to its deep location.

METHODS

We did a retrospective analysis of all patients with caudate lobe abscess who underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage at our center. We reviewed their indications, technical and clinical success rates of the procedure from 2020 to 2023. We also performed systemic review of published literature till June 12, 2023 showing use of EUS-guided drainage of caudate lobe abscess.

RESULTS

Total of 8 patients (age: 37.33 ± 12.8 y; Males 62.5%) underwent EUS-guided drainage of caudate lobe collection at our center. Six patients underwent drainage using plastic stents, 1 patient underwent using metal stent, and 1 patient had aspiration of the abscess. Technical success was achieved in all patients. One patient succumbed to background illness and clinical success could be achieved in rest of the patients. In systemic review of literature on EUS-guided drainage of caudate lobe, a total of 10 studies (17 patients) were included. All patients achieved technical success. Majority studies reported use of plastic stents or naso-cystic drains whereas only 1 case reported use of metal stents. One procedure related complication (localized para-esophageal abscess) was reported requiring endoscopic intervention for management.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided drainage of caudate lobe abscess is safe and effective. It should be used as a first-line intervention after a failed medical management.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver abscess drainage: A multicenter collaborative study

Background and Objectives

Management of hepatic abscesses has traditionally been performed by image-guided percutaneous techniques. More recently, EUS drainage has been shown to be efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-guided versus percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of hepatic abscesses.

Methods

Patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage or PCD of hepatic abscesses from January 2018 through November 2021 from 4 international academic centers were included in a dedicated registry. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, abscess characteristics, procedural data, adverse events, and postprocedure care were collected.

Results

Seventy-four patients were included (mean age, 63.9 years; 45% male): EUS-guided (n = 30), PCD (n = 44). Preprocedure Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were 4.3 for the EUS group and 4.3 for the PCD group. The median abscess size was 8.45 × 6 cm (length × width) in the EUS group versus 7.3 × 5.5 cm in the PCD group. All of the abscesses in the EUS group were left-sided, whereas the PCD group contained both left- and right-sided abscesses (29 and 15, respectively). Technical success was 100% in both groups. Ten-millimeter-diameter stents were used in most cases in the EUS group, and 10F catheters were used in the PCD group. The duration to resolution of symptoms from the initial procedure was 10.9 days less in the EUS group compared with the PCD group (P < 0.00001). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the EUS group by 5.2 days (P = 0.000126). The EUS group had significantly fewer number of repeat sessions: mean of 2 versus 7.7 (P < 0.00001) and trended toward fewer number of procedure-related readmissions: 10% versus 34%. The PCD group had a significantly higher number of adverse events (n = 27 [61%]) when compared with the EUS group (n = 5 [17%]; P = 0.0001).

Conclusions

EUS-guided drainage is an efficacious and safe intervention for the management of hepatic abscesses. EUS-guided drainage allows for quicker resolution of symptoms, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer adverse events, and fewer procedural sessions needed when compared with the PCD technique. However, EUS-guided drainage may not be feasible in right-sided lesions.

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.

Endosonography-Guided Caudate Lobe Liver Abscess Drainage: A Case and Review of Methods

There are only 11 cases of caudate lobe liver abscess drainage described in the published literature. We present a case of liver abscess drainage done by endosonography (EUS) and review of various EUS-guided liver abscess drainage techniques and endoprostheses. Here we have aimed at reviewing the data for paving the way for the development of a consensus for liver abscess drainage.

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.