Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy versus percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver disease: a retrospective single-center study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Ultrasound Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and aims

There is limited literature on endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB), a new method of obtaining liver biopsy (LB).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) in patients with chronic liver disease at our center between January 2018 and August 2019.

Results

Thirty patients underwent EUS-LB and 60 patients underwent PC-LB were identified (median follow-up post-LB was 8 days; interquartile range (IQR), 3–5 days). The median number of portal tracts was significantly higher in the PC-LB group (13 vs. 5; P < 0.0001). A histologic diagnosis was established in 93% of the EUS-LB group, compared to 100% in the PC-LB group (P = 0.841). Patients in EUS-LB group had significantly shorter hospital stay (median time of hospital stay was 3 vs. 4.2 h in the EUS-LB vs. PC-LB group, respectively; P = 0.004) and reported less pain compared to PC-LB group (median pain score was 0 vs. 3.5; P = 0.0009). EUS-LB were performed using a 19-gauge (n = 27) or 22-gauge (n = 3); there was a tendency towards higher number of portal tracts in the 22- vs. the 19-gauge needle group (6 vs. 5; P = 0.501). No patient in either group had significant adverse events such as bleeding or death.

Conclusion

EUS-LB is safe and is associated with less pain, shorter hospital stay, and high diagnostic yield (93%) compared to PC-LB. Randomized trials are needed to standardize the utility of EUS-LB.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Abbreviations

CHC:

Chronic hepatitis C

CRN:

Clinical Research Network

EH:

Eosinophilic hepatitis

ESLD:

End-stage liver disease

EUS-LB:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy

EUS-FNA/FNB:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration or biopsy

FLD:

Fatty liver disease

IRB:

Institutional Review Board

LB:

Liver biopsy

NAFLD:

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

NASH:

Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis

NAS:

NAFLD activity score

PBC:

Primary biliary cholangitis

PC-LB:

Percutaneous-guided liver biopsy

PFIC:

Progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis

VCTE:

Vibration-controlled transient elastography

References

  1. Talwalkar JA, Kurtz DM, Schoenleber SJ, West CP, Montori VM (2007) Ultrasound-based transient elastography for the detection of hepatic fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 5(10):1214–1220

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sandrin L, Fourquet B, Hasquenoph JM, Yon S, Fournier C, Mal F et al (2003) Transient elastography: a new noninvasive method for assessment of hepatic fibrosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 29(12):1705–1713

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD, Nelson RC, Smith AD (2009) American Association for the Study of Liver D. Liver biopsy. Hepatology 49(3):1017–1044

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Strassburg CP, Manns MP (2006) Approaches to liver biopsy techniques–revisited. Sem Liver Dis 26(4):318–327

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S (2001) Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 344(7):495–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Stavropoulos SN, Al-Haddad M, Ramesh J et al (2015) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a multicenter experience. Endosc Int Open 3(3):E210–E215

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yavuz K, Geyik S, Barton RE, Petersen B, Lakin P, Keller FS et al (2007) Transjugular liver biopsy via the left internal jugular vein. J Vasc Interv Radiol 18(2):237–241

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mok SRS, Diehl DL (2019) The role of EUS in liver biopsy. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 21(2):6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Confer BD, Mudireddy PR et al (2019) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy in chronic liver disease: a randomized comparison of 19-G FNA and 22-G FNB needles. Endosc Int Open 7(1):E62–E71

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Pineda JJ, Diehl DL, Miao CL, Johal AS, Khara HS, Bhanushali A et al (2016) EUS-guided liver biopsy provides diagnostic samples comparable with those via the percutaneous or transjugular route. Gastrointest Endosc 83(2):360–365

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith EH (1991) Complications of percutaneous abdominal fine-needle biopsy. Review. Radiology 178(1):253–258

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Myers RP, Fong A, Shaheen AA (2008) Utilization rates, complications and costs of percutaneous liver biopsy: a population-based study including 4275 biopsies. Liver Int 28(5):705–712

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Johal AS, Khara HS, Maksimak MG, Diehl DL (2014) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in pediatric patients. Endosc Ultrasound 3(3):191–194

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Parekh PJ, Majithia R, Diehl DL, Baron TH (2015) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Endosc Ultrasound 4(2):85–91

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Shruti MSI, Vyas N, Sofi A, Das A (2018) Eus guided liver biopsy is more cost-effective than percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Gastrointest Endosc AB326–AB7

  16. Sey MS, Al-Haddad M, Imperiale TF, McGreevy K, Lin J, DeWitt JM (2016) EUS-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal disease: a comparison of diagnostic yield between two core biopsy needles. Gastrointest Endosc 83(2):347–352

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nieto J, Khaleel H, Challita Y, Jimenez M, Baron TH, Walters L et al (2018) 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 87(2):469–475

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kleiner DE, Brunt EM, Van Natta M, Behling C, Contos MJ, Cummings OW et al (2005) Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Hepatology 41(6):1313–1321

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Krebs EE, Carey TS, Weinberger M (2007) Accuracy of the pain numeric rating scale as a screening test in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 22(10):1453–1458

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Demetris AJ, Ruppert K (2003) Pathologist's perspective on liver needle biopsy size? J Hepatol 39(2):275–277

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Crawford AR, Lin XZ, Crawford JM (1998) The normal adult human liver biopsy: a quantitative reference standard. Hepatology 28(2):323–331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bazerbachi F, Vargas EJ, Matar R, Storm AC, Mounajjed TM, Topazian MD et al (2019) EUS-guided core liver biopsy sampling using a 22-gauge fork-tip needle: a prospective blinded trial for histologic and lipidomic evaluation in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastrointest Endosc 90(6):926–932

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bjørn M, Brendstrup C, Karlsen S, Carlsen JE (1998) Consecutive screening and enrollment in clinical trials: the way to representative patient samples? J Cardiac Fail 4(3):225–230

    Google Scholar 

  24. Firpi RJ, Soldevila-Pico C, Abdelmalek MF, Morelli G, Judah J, Nelson DR (2005) Short recovery time after percutaneous liver biopsy: should we change our current practices? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(9):926–929

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Friedman LS (2004) Controversies in liver biopsy: who, where, when, how, why? Curr Gastroenterol Rep 6(1):30–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grant A, Neuberger J (1999) Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut 45(Suppl 4):iv1–iv11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Lindor KD, Bru C, Jorgensen RA, Rakela J, Bordas JM, Gross JB et al (1996) The role of ultrasonography and automatic-needle biopsy in outpatient percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology 23(5):1079–1083

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Takyar V, Etzion O, Heller T, Kleiner DE, Rotman Y, Ghany MG et al (2017) Complications of percutaneous liver biopsy with Klatskin needles: a 36-year single-centre experience. Aliment Pharmacol Therap 45(5):744–753

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tublin ME, Blair R, Martin J, Malik S, Ruppert K, Demetris A (2017) Prospective study of the impact of liver biopsy core size on specimen adequacy and procedural complications. Am J Roentgenol 210(1):183–188

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vijayaraghavan GR, David S, Bermudez-Allende M, Sarwat H (2011) Imaging-guided parenchymal liver biopsy: how we do it. J Clin Imaging Sci 1:30

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R, Ponnada S, Adler DG (2019) Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 89(2):238–46.e3

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 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(2):239–244

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri-School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA

    Ahmad Hassan Ali, Sarjukumar Panchal, Alhareth Al-Juboori, Sami Samiullah, Jamal A. Ibdah & Ghassan M. Hammoud

  2. Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri-School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA

    Deepthi S. Rao & Yujun Gan

Authors
  1. Ahmad Hassan Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarjukumar Panchal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deepthi S. Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yujun Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alhareth Al-Juboori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sami Samiullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jamal A. Ibdah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ghassan M. Hammoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GMH, AHA, and SP contributed to the concept, design, literature search, clinical studies, data acquisition, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, manuscript editing, and manuscript review. DSR and YG re-examined the liver biopsies. AA, SS, and JAI reviewed and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ghassan M. Hammoud.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This is a retrospective study that involved only chart review. No animals were involved in any aspect of this study.

Informed consent

Obtaining informed consent has been waived by the institution’s IRB due to nature of the study (retrospective and chart review study).

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

Ali, A.H., Panchal, S., Rao, D.S. et al. The efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy versus percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver disease: a retrospective single-center study. J Ultrasound 23, 157–167 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-020-00436-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-020-00436-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation