Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy for parenchymal liver disease

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy of Focal Liver Lesions: An Effective Mini-Invasive Alternative to the Percutaneous Approach

Despite the introduction of serological neoplastic biomarkers and typical radiological characteristics in clinical practice, liver biopsy (LB) is often still necessary to establish a histological diagnosis, especially in ambiguous cases. Nowadays, LB via the percutaneous approach (PC-LB), under computed tomography (CT) scan or ultrasonography (US) guidance, is the route of choice. However, certain focal liver lesions can be challenging to access percutaneously. In such cases, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) may represent an attractive, minimally invasive alternative. This retrospective observational study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, diagnostic performance, and safety of EUS-FNB conducted on 58 focal liver lesions located in both liver lobes. The adequacy of FNB samples for focal liver lesions located in the left and right lobes was 100% and 81.2%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001). Technical success was 100% for both liver lobes. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 95% and 100%, respectively. EUS-FNB is effective in making an accurate diagnosis with an excellent safety profile for focal liver lesions located in both liver lobes.

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.

Multiloculated Liver Abscess: A Complication of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy is gaining popularity for liver parenchymal sampling due to its detailed visualization of liver anatomy, precision in sampling, and the ability to combine liver biopsy with other endoscopic goals. In this study, we present a case involving an anatomically complex, immunocompromised patient who underwent EUS-guided liver biopsy. While the samples were sufficient and progressed the management of her autoimmune hepatitis, her course was complicated by a multiloculated liver abscess. EUS liver biopsy has an excellent safety profile, but a small risk of infection remains, especially in immunocompromised patients or those with preexisting biliary obstruction.

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.

Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in diagnosing hepatic focal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has become an established method in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in gastroenterology; however, it has recently gained a growing role in hepatology.

AIM

To evaluate the role of EUS features, strain elastography (SE), and EUS-tissue acquisition in diagnosing hepatic focal lesions (HFLs) that could affect further management.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 215 patients with pancreatic, biliary, or gastrointestinal malignancies referred for EUS examination. HFLs were identified in 43 patients (20%), and EUS-guided tissue acquisition was performed from these lesions.

RESULTS

EUS features were highly sensitive (100%) but much less specific (57%) in diagnosing HFLs; the overall accuracy was 94%. Real-time elastography was also very sensitive (97%) but less specific (67%) in diagnosing HFLs; however, the overall accuracy was 92%. EUS tissue acquisition was extremely sensitive (100%) and specific (100%), with a 100% overall diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic utility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition was extremely accurate in diagnosing HFLs. EUS characteristics and real-time SE accurately predicted the histological diagnosis of both benign and malignant HFLs.

Performance of Non-invasive Biomarkers of Liver Fibrosis Amongst Hispanics and African Americans

INTRODUCTION

 Liver biopsy is the gold standard for fibrosis staging. However, it is limited by significant complications. Non-invasive markers of fibrosis have been developed as an alternative to liver biopsy. The performance of these different markers varies with the etiology of liver fibrosis and possibly amongst different ethnicities. We aim to assess the performance of non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis amongst Hispanics and African Americans.

METHOD

This is a retrospective cohort analysis of patients who had liver biopsy as part of their evaluation of chronic liver disease. One hundred and twenty-six records were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Probit regression receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to assess the sensitivity of the different non-invasive biomarkers and underlying variables with respect to liver biopsy. The following non-invasive markers for fibrosis were used: Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to platelet ratio index (APRI), age-platelet, AST/alanine aminotransferase (AST/ALT) ratio, fibrosis cirrhosis index (FCI), and fibrosis index (FI).

RESULTS

About two-thirds of the study population were African Americans with majority of the study population having chronic liver disease from viral infection. Minimal to no fibrosis by the METAVIR (an acronym for Meta-analysis of Histological Data in Viral Hepatitis) score was found in 58% of patients compared to 42% with moderate to severe fibrosis. Hispanics were more likely than Blacks to have hepatic steatosis. Age significantly increased the sensitivity and specificity of APRI and age-platelet scores. The AST/ALT score had a lower sensitivity for liver fibrosis in women compared to men in our study population. The sensitivity of FIB-4 and age-platelet was higher in Hispanics compared to African Americans while the opposite was the case for APRI, AST/ALT, FCI, and FI.

CONCLUSION

Non-invasive biomarkers are useful in detecting liver fibrosis. FIB-4 and age-platelet have a high sensitivity in Hispanics while African Americans have a high sensitivity for APRI, AST/ALT, FCI, and FI. It is worth noting that these non-invasive biomarkers had variable performances when ethnicity, age, and sex were considered in our population.

Noninvasive Fibrosis Testing in Chronic Liver Disease Including Caveats

Assessment of liver fibrosis is important as the range of liver disease management has expanded, rendering biopsy both imperfect and impractical in many situations. Noninvasive tests of fibrosis leverage laboratory, imaging and elastography techniques to estimate disease extent, often with the goal of identifying advanced fibrosis. This review attempts to summarize their utility across a broad range of possible clinical scenarios while considering the central tenets of health care quality: access, quality, and cost. For each test, it also discusses the caveats whereby each test may have reduced effectiveness and how to consider each in a typical clinical setting.

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.

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.

Liver Biopsy in Pregnancy: Two Case Reports and Review of the Literature

The etiology of most cases of liver diseases in pregnancy can be diagnosed with a thorough history, physical examination, laboratory values, serology, and noninvasive imaging. However, atypical clinical and laboratory presentations of liver diseases/chemistries require a liver biopsy to render an accurate diagnosis in cases where the biopsy results affect the timing of delivery or impact choice of medical therapy. According to the American College of Gastroenterology, liver biopsy can be effectively and safely conducted in pregnant women. Conventional routes of performing a liver biopsy include the percutaneous, transjugular route, and surgical methods. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy is a recent technique that has not yet gained widespread adoption but can potentially serve as an alternative route for obtaining the liver sample. Adverse events associated with liver biopsy include abdominal pain and hemorrhage. Maternal and fetal outcomes are limited to increased risk of preterm birth and small for gestational age neonate. However, very few studies have formally evaluated the safety of liver biopsy in pregnant women. In this review, we present two successful cases of liver biopsy performed during pregnancy and summarize the most recent evidence regarding the safety and outcomes of the procedure in pregnancy to assist clinicians in their decision to perform a liver biopsy during pregnancy or postpone it until after delivery.

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.).

Current state of endohepatology: Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications with endoscopic ultrasound

The diagnosis and management of cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PH) with its complications including variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy continues to evolve. Although there are established “standards of care” in liver biopsy and measurement of PH, gastric varices remain an area without a universally accepted therapeutic approach. The concept of “Endo Hepatology” has been used to describe of the applications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to these challenges. EUS-liver biopsy (EUS-LB) offers an alternative to percutaneous and transjuglar liver biopsy without compromising safety or efficacy, and with added advantages including the potential to reduce sampling error by allowing biopsies in both hepatic lobes. Furthermore, EUS-LB can be performed during the same procedure as EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (PPG) measurements, allowing for the collection of valuable diagnostic and prognostic data. EUS-guided PPG measurements provide an appealing alternative to the transjugular approach, with proposed advantages including the ability to directly measure portal vein pressure. In addition, EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices (GV) offers several possible advantages to current therapies. EUS-guided treatment of GV allows detailed assessment of the vascular anatomy, similar efficacy and safety to current therapies, and allows the evaluation of treatment effect through doppler ultrasound visualization. The appropriate selection of patients for these procedures is paramount to ensuring generation of useful clinical data and patient safety.

A prospective, head-to-head comparison of 2 EUS-guided liver biopsy needles in vivo

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Procedural standardization in endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is necessary to obtain core biopsy specimens for accurate diagnosis. The objective of this study was to directly compare the diagnostic yield of 2 EUS-LB fine-needle biopsy (FNB) systems in vivo.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center study, 108 adult patients undergoing EUS-LB over a 1-year period were included. Each EUS-LB consisted of an EGD, followed by EUS-guided biopsy of the left lobe of the liver sequentially using 2 different 19-gauge needles: the fork-tip (SharkCore) and Franseen (Acquire) FNB systems. Specimens were then reviewed by a GI histopathologist to determine diagnostic adequacy as well as the number of complete portal tracts, specimen length, and degree of fragmentation.

RESULTS

In 79.4% of cases, the fork-tip FNB system yielded a final diagnosis compared with 97.2% of the Franseen FNB specimens (P < .001). The mean number of complete portal tracts in the fork-tip FNB samples was 7.07 compared with 9.59 in the Franseen FNB samples (P < .001). The mean specimen length was 13.86 mm for the fork-tip FNB and 15.81 mm for the Franseen FNB (P = .004). Cores were intact in 47.6% of the fork-tip FNB samples and in 75.2% of the Franseen FNB samples (P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

In EUS-LB, we found that the 19-gauge Franseen FNB system resulted in a statistically significant increase in diagnostic adequacy compared with biopsy using the fork-tip FNB system.

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.

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.

A Comprehensive Narrative Review on the Evolving Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Focal Solid Liver Lesions Diagnosis and Management

The implications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have expanded considerably in recent years to cover more fields in invasive gastroenterology practice, as both an investigative and therapeutic modality. The utility of EUS in the diagnosis and management of focal liver lesions has gained a special attractiveness recently. The EUS probe proximity to the liver and its excellent spatial resolution enables real-time images coupled with several enhancement techniques, such as contrast-enhanced (CE) EUS. Aside from its notable capability to execute targeted biopsies and therapeutic interventions, EUS has developed into a hopeful therapeutic tool for the management of solid liver lesions. Herein, we provide a comprehensive state-of-the-art review on the efficacy and safety of EUS in the diagnosis and management of focal solid liver lesions. Medline/PubMed and Embase database searches were conducted by two separate authors (T.K. and W.S.), all relevant studies were assessed, and relevant data was extracted and fully reported. EUS-guided diagnosis of focal liver lesions by sonographic morphologic appearance and cytological and histopathological finding of biopsies obtained via fine needle aspiration/biopsy have been shown to significantly improve the diagnosis of solid liver lesions compared with traditional imaging tools. Similarly, EUS-guided treatment has been shown to consistently have excellent technical success, high efficacy, and minor adverse events. The evolving valuable evidences of EUS utility might satisfy the unmet need of optimizing management of focal solid liver lesions.

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.

The utility of liver biopsy in 2020

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Over the past decade, imaging modalities and serological tests have emerged as important tools in the evaluation of liver diseases, in many cases supplanting the use of liver biopsy and histological examination. Nonetheless, the accuracy and diagnostic value of these methods may not always be conclusive and the assessment of liver histology often remains the gold standard for diagnostic evaluation. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current role of liver biopsy in contemporary hepatology practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

Technical factors were found to influence the diagnostic value of liver biopsy and histological examination of the liver, including specimen number and size (preferably ≥3 nonfragmented specimens of >20 mm in length), needle diameter (1.6 mm Menghini), number of passes (mean 2.5), imaging-guidance, and operator experience. Liver biopsy was demonstrated to be diagnostically valuable in the evaluation of persistently abnormal liver tests of unclear cause, with histology pointing to a specific diagnosis in 84% of patients. Although coagulation abnormalities continue to be an important concern when performing liver biopsy, their influence on complication risk remains unclear. Implementation of less stringent preprocedural coagulation thresholds decreased preprocedural transfusions without increasing the bleeding rate. Serious complications associated with percutaneous liver-biopsy (PLB) and transjugular liver-biopsy are similar, but pain appears to be more common with PLB.

SUMMARY

Histopathological evaluation continues to be fundamentally important in assessing hepatic disease, and liver histology remains the most accurate approach to assess fibrosis and assign prognosis.

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.