Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of clinical efficacy, subjective user experience, and safety for two different core biopsy needles, the Achieve® and Marquee®

  • Special Section: Cross sectional interventions
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare clinical efficacy, subjective radiologist preference, and complication rates for two different core biopsy needles, the Achieve® and Marquee®.

Methods

Retrospective review included consecutive patients who underwent 18 gauge non-targeted core liver biopsy, 30 with Achieve® (Merit Medical) and 30 with Marquee® (BD Bard) Pathologist (blinded to needle type) reviewed specimen total length, maximum width, and portal triad count. Sixteen radiologists subjectively rated (1 to 5(best)) each needle for cocking, firing, recoil, chamber exposure, handling, and overall. A medical records search of all (targeted and non-targeted) core liver biopsies 1/1/17–9/30/2020 compared rates of major (requiring transfusion and/or embolization) and minor (self-limited bleeding) hemorrhagic complications. Comparison between needle types was performed using t-test.

Results

For Achieve® and Marquee® needles, the respective mean (SD) for total length(mm) was 29.7(7.0) and 31.9(4.6), p = 0.1; max width(mm) was 0.78(0.1) and 0.85(0.1), p < 0.01; and number of portal triads was 15.3(5.3) and 17.3(5.3), p = 0.2. Radiologists subjectively preferred the Marquee® for several measures including cocking, chamber exposure, and overall (p < 0.02 for each), while the needles were rated similarly for firing, recoil, and handling. Review of 800 cases showed no difference in major (1.0% Achieve®, 1.9% Marquee®, p = 0.5) or minor (1.5% Achieve®, 0.5% Marquee®, p = 0.3) rates of hemorrhagic complications.

Conclusion

Liver biopsy specimens were significantly wider with Marquee® compared to Achieve®. Radiologists preferred the Marquee® for multiple tactile measures, while the major complication rate was not significantly different. While both needles have a similar side-notch design, the Marquee® needle demonstrates better sample quality and higher user preference, without compromising safety.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD (2009) Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49: 1017-1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hall TC, Deakin C, Atwal GS, Sigh RK (2017) Adequacy of percutaneous non-targeted liver biopsy under real-time ultrasound guidance when comparing the Biopince and Achieve biopsy needle. Br J Radiol 90: 20170397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hopper KD, Abendroth CS, Sturtz KW, Matthews YL, Stevens LA, Shirk SJ (1993) Automated biopsy devices: a blinded evaluation. Radiology 187: 653-660

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Midia M, Odedra D, Shuster A, Midea R, Muir J (2019) Predictors of bleeding complications following percutaneous image-guided liver biopsy: a scoping review. Diagn Interv Radiol 25: 71-80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40: 373-383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Development Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria. Available from https://www.R-project.org

  7. Karam AR, Nugent W, Khan A, Desai D, Shankar S (2010) Curved stylet core biopsy results in larger cores. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195: 242-244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuen HY, Lee Y, Bhatia K, Wong KT, Ahuja AT (2012) Use of end-cutting needles in ultrasound-guided biopsy of neck lesions. Eur Radiol 22: 832-836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schaible J, Utpatel K, Verloh N, Pregler B, Zeman F, Wiggermann P, Schreyer AG, Stroszczynski C, Beyer LP (2020) Full-Core Biopsy Systems Take Larger Liver Tissue Samples with Lower Fragmentation Rates Than Conventional Side-Notch Systems: A Randomized Trial. Cancer Manag Res 12: 1121-1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hopper KD, Abendroth CS, Sturtz KW, Matthews YL, Hartzel JS, Potok PS (1995) CT percutaneous biopsy guns: comparison of end-cut and side-notch devices in cadaveric specimens. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 164: 195-199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Colloredo G, Guido M, Sonzogni A, Leandro G (2003) Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol 39: 239-244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bedossa P, Dargere D, Paradis V (2003) Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 38: 1449-1457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boyum JH, Atwell TD, Wall DJ, Mansfield AS, Kerr SE, Gunderson TM, Rumilla KM, Weisbrod AJ, Kurup AN (2016) Incidence and Risk Factors for Adverse Events Related to Image-Guided Liver Biopsy. Mayo Clin Proc 91: 329-335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Atwell TD, Spanbauer JC, McMenomy BP, Stockland AH, Hesley GK, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS, Welch TJ (2015) The Timing and Presentation of Major Hemorrhage After 18,947 Image-Guided Percutaneous Biopsies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205: 190-195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Padia SA, Baker ME, Schaeffer CJ, Remer EM, Obuchowski NA, Winans C, Herts BR (2009) Safety and efficacy of sonographic-guided random real-time core needle biopsy of the liver. J Clin Ultrasound 37: 138-143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mueller M, Kratzer W, Oeztuerk S, Wilhelm M, Mason RA, Mao R, Haenle MM (2012) Percutaneous ultrasonographically guided liver punctures: an analysis of 1961 patients over a period of ten years. BMC Gastroenterol 12: 173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Constantin A, Brisson M, Kwan J, Proulx F (2010) Percutaneous US-guided renal biopsy: a retrospective study comparing the 16-gauge end-cut and 14-gauge side-notch needles. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21: 357-361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ho LM, Pendse AA, Ronald J, Luciano M, Marin D, Jaffe TA, Nelson RC (2020) Ultrasound-guided non-targeted liver core biopsy: comparison of the efficacy of two different core needle biopsy systems using an ex-vivo animal model and retrospective review of clinical experience. Clin Imaging 61: 36-42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fotiadis N, Paepe KN, Bonne L, et al. (2020) Comparison of a coaxial versus non-coaxial liver biopsy technique in an oncological setting: diagnostic yield, complications and seeding risk. Eur Radiol 30: 6702-6708

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3808, Durham, NC, 22710, USA

    Lisa M. Ho, James Ronald, Hemant Desai, Cole Ziegler, Rendon C. Nelson & Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner

  2. Department of Pathology, Duke University Medical Center, 2301 Erwin Road, Box 3712, Durham, NC, 22710, USA

    Avani A. Pendse

  3. Duke University School of Medicine, 40 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Rui Dai

Authors
  1. Lisa M. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Avani A. Pendse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Ronald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hemant Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Rui Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cole Ziegler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rendon C. Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Ho.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Rendon C. Nelson—Research support from Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. Lisa M. Ho, Avani A. Pendse, James Ronald, Hemant Desai, Rui Dai, Cole Ziegler and Benjamin Wildman-Tobriner declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ho, L.M., Pendse, A.A., Ronald, J. et al. Comparison of clinical efficacy, subjective user experience, and safety for two different core biopsy needles, the Achieve® and Marquee®. Abdom Radiol 47, 2632–2639 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03187-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03187-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation