Advertisement

The Role of EUS in Liver Biopsy

  • Shaffer R. S. Mok
  • David L. DiehlEmail author
Pancreas and Biliary Tract (O Haluszka, Section Editor)
  • 26 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Pancreas and Biliary Tract

Abstract

Purpose of Review

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is being used with increased frequency to perform parenchymal liver biopsy. Evolution of the technique can now achieve excellent liver tissue cores. This review covers important developments in this procedure.

Recent Findings

Clinical studies have recently demonstrated that the 19G EUS core biopsy needle is superior to non-core needles for liver tissue acquisition. In addition, wet suction provides more robust tissue samples than dry suction. Heparin priming of the needle (instead of saline) can prevent blood clogging within the needle lumen. A 1-hour recovery time after the EUS-LB is sufficient in almost all cases. The EUS-LB can deliver bilobar biopsies, which can decrease sampling error. Patients who need a liver biopsy in addition to an endoscopy or EUS are best served by the EUS-LB, as the combination procedure saves time and cost.

Summary

The EUS-LB is a safe and effective means for procuring good liver core biopsies. Incremental improvements in technique have increased quality of the resulting specimen. Future directions of this technique are discussed.

Keywords

Liver biopsy Endoscopic ultrasound Fine needle biopsy Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis 

Abbreviations

EUS

Endoscopic ultrasound

EUS-LB

Endoscopic ultrasound–guided liver biopsy

FNA

Fine needle aspiration

FNB

Fine needle biopsy

G

Gauge

LB

Liver biopsy

NAFLD

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

U/S

Ultrasound

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

David Diehl reports working as a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Olympus America, and Cook Medical. Shaffer Mok reports working as a consultant for Medtronic and grants from Pentax/C2 Therapeutics, outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Caldwell S. Liver biopsy: the reports of its demise are greatly exaggerated. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2016;7(5):e171.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2016.30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dewitt J, McGreevy K, Cummings O, et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided Tru-cut biopsy of benign liver disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 1):535–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.056.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    •• Pineda JJ, Diehl DL, Miao CL, et al. EUS-guided liver biopsy provides diagnostic samples comparable with those via the percutaneous or transjugular route. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(2):360–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.025 Comparison of EUS-LB to other methods of LB (transvenous and percutaneous), demonstrating equivalence. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Tapper EB, Lok ASF. Use of liver imaging and biopsy in clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:756–68.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1610570 Recent review of use of liver biopsy as well as non-invasive imaging in clinical practice. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garcia-Tsao G, Boyer JL. Outpatient liver biopsy: how safe is it? Ann Intern Med. 1993;118(2):150–3.  https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-2-199301150-00013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rösch J, Hanafee WN, Snow H. Transjugular portal venography and radiologic portacaval shunt: an experimental study. Radiology. 1969;92:1112–4.  https://doi.org/10.1148/92.5.1112.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med. 2004;344:495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, Standish R, Marelli L, Quaglia A, Patch D, et al. A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;125(5):710–21.  https://doi.org/10.1309/W3XC-NT4H-KFBN-2G0B.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kalambokis G, Manousou P, Vibhakorn S, Marelli L, Cholongitas E, Senzolo M, et al. Transjugular liver biopsy - indications, adequacy, quality of specimens, and complications - a systematic review. J Hepatol. 2007;47(2):284–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2007.05.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD. AASLD position paper liver biopsy. Hepatology. 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22742 Comprehensive review of liver biopsy including indication, technical aspects, and histology analysis.
  11. 11.
    Mathew A. EUS-guided routine liver biopsy in selected patients [7]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(10):2354–5.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01353_7.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gleeson FC, Clayton AC, Zhang L, Clain JE, Gores GJ, Rajan E, et al. Adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound core needle biopsy specimen of nonmalignant hepatic parenchymal disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(12):1437–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2008.07.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sey MSL, Al-Haddad M, Imperiale TF, McGreevy K, Lin J, Dewitt JM. EUS-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal disease: a comparison of diagnostic yield between two core biopsy needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83(2):347–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    • Stavropoulos SN, Im GY, Jlayer Z, et al. High yield of same-session EUS-guided liver biopsy by 19-gauge FNA needle in patients undergoing EUS to exclude biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(2):310–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.09.043 Seminal paper demonstrating that a regular 19G EUS needle could be used to proceure adequate liver biopsy. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Diehl D, Johal A, Khara H, Stavropoulos S, al-Haddad M, Ramesh J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a multicenter experience. Endosc Int Open. 2015;3(03):E210–5.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1391412.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schulman AR, Thompson CC, Odze R, Chan WW, Ryou M. Optimizing EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: comprehensive assessment of needle types and tissue acquisition techniques. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):419–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mok SR, Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Diehl M, Mudireddy PR, et al. Mo1245 19 versus 22 gauge fine needle biopsy for endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB): a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):AB473–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Attam R, Arain MA, Bloechl SJ, Trikudanathan G, Munigala S, Bakman Y, et al. “Wet suction technique (WEST)”: a novel way to enhance the quality of EUS-FNA aspirate. Results of a prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial using a 22-gauge needle for EUS-FNA of solid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1401–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.11.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    • Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS, et al. A prospective pilot comparison of wet and dry heparinized suction for EUS-guided liver biopsy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.036 Study demonstrating significant advantage of wet suction for EUS-LB.
  20. 20.
    Diehl D, Mok S, Khara H, Johal A, Kirchner H, Lin F. Heparin priming of EUS-FNA needles does not adversely affect tissue cytology or immunohistochemical staining. Endosc Int Open. 2018;06(03):E356–62.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-121880.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ching Companioni RA, Johal AS, Confer B, Khara HS, Diehl DL. Mo1349 a prospective randomized trial of 19-gauge (G) aspiration needle versus 19G core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):AB457–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ching Companioni R, Johal AS, Confer B, Khara HS, Diehl DL. Modified 1 pass, 1 versus 3 actuation wet suction technique for endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB): a randomized prospective trial. GIE. 2018;87(6):AB457-AB458.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nieto J, Khaleel H, Challita Y, et al. EUS-guided fine-needle core liver biopsy sampling using a novel 19-gauge needle with modified 1-pass, 1 actuation wet suction technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:AB494–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baunsgaard P, Sanchez GC, Lundborg CJ. The variation of pathological changes in the liver evaluated by double biopsies. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand Sect A Pathol. 2009;87A(1–6):51–7.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1699-0463.1979.tb00023.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Abdi W, Millan JC, Mezey E. Sampling variability on percutaneous liver biopsy. Arch Intern Med. 1979;139:667–9.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1979.03630430043014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maharaj B, Leary WP, Naran AD, Maharaj RJ, Cooppan RM, Pirie D, et al. Sampling variability and its influence on the diagnostic yield of percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver. Lancet. 1986;327:523–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90883-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diehl DL. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. In: Adler DG, editor. Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound. New York, NY USA, Springer; 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97376-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    • Huang JY, Samarasena JB, Tsujino T, et al. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a simple novel device: a human pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):996–1001.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.026 EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement is likely to be adopted after more clinical data is accumulated. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huang JY, Samarasena JB, Tsujino T, Chang KJ. EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a novel 25-gauge needle device versus standard transjugular approach: a comparison animal study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84(2):358–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.02.032.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulman AR, Ryou M, Aihara H, Abidi W, Chiang A, Jirapinyo P, et al. EUS-guided intrahepatic portosystemic shunt with direct portal pressure measurements: a novel alternative to transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunting. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:243–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.041.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schulman AR, Thompson CC, Ryou M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided direct portal pressure measurement using a digital pressure wire with real-time remote display: a survival study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech. 2017;27:1051–4.  https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2017.0032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Case Western Reserve University—School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology and NutritionGeisinger Medical CenterDanvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations