AIM: To analyze the safety and the adequacy of a sample of liver biopsies (LB) obtained by gastroenterologist (G) and interventional radiologist (IR) teams. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients evaluated at our GI unit from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2010 for whom LB was considered necessary to diagnose and/or stage liver disease, both in the setting of day hospital and regular admission (RA) care, were retrieved and the data entered in a database. Patients were divided into two groups: one undergoing an ultrasonography (US)-assisted procedure by the G team and one undergoing US-guided biopsy by the IR team. For the first group, an intercostal approach (US-assisted) and a Menghini modified type needle 16 G (length 90 mm) were used. The IR team used a subcostal approach (US-guided) and a semiautomatic modified Menghini type needle 18 G (length 150 mm). All the biopsies were evaluated for appropriateness according to the current guidelines. The number of portal tracts present in each biopsy was assessed by a revision performed by a single pathologist unaware of the previous pathology report. Clinical, laboratory and demographic patient characteristics, the adverse events rate and the diagnostic adequacy of LB were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 226 patients, 126 males (56%) and 100 females (44%), underwent LB: 167 (74%) were carried out by the G team, whereas 59 (26%) by the IR team. LB was mostly performed in a day hospital setting by the G team, while IR completed more procedures on inpatients (P < 0.0001). The groups did not differ in median age, body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbidities and coagulation parameters. Complications occurred in 26 patients (16 G team vs 10 IR team, P = 0.15). Most gross samples obtained were considered suitable for basal histological evaluation, with no difference among the two teams (96.4% G team vs 91.5% IR, P = 0.16). However, the samples obtained by the G team had a higher mean number of portal tracts (G team 9.5 ± 4.8; range 1-29 vs IR team 7.8 ± 4.1; range 1-20) (P = 0.0192) and a longer mean length (G team 22 mm ± 8.8 vs IR team 15 ± 6.5 mm) (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: LB can be performed with similar outcomes both by G and IR. Use of larger dimension needles allows obtaining better samples, with a similar rate of adverse events.
AIM: To analyze the safety and the adequacy of a sample of liver biopsies (LB) obtained by gastroenterologist (G) and interventional radiologist (IR) teams. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients evaluated at our GI unit from 01/01/2004 to 31/12/2010 for whom LB was considered necessary to diagnose and/or stage liver disease, both in the setting of day hospital and regular admission (RA) care, were retrieved and the data entered in a database. Patients were divided into two groups: one undergoing an ultrasonography (US)-assisted procedure by the G team and one undergoing US-guided biopsy by the IR team. For the first group, an intercostal approach (US-assisted) and a Menghini modified type needle 16 G (length 90 mm) were used. The IR team used a subcostal approach (US-guided) and a semiautomatic modified Menghini type needle 18 G (length 150 mm). All the biopsies were evaluated for appropriateness according to the current guidelines. The number of portal tracts present in each biopsy was assessed by a revision performed by a single pathologist unaware of the previous pathology report. Clinical, laboratory and demographic patient characteristics, the adverse events rate and the diagnostic adequacy of LB were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, 226 patients, 126 males (56%) and 100 females (44%), underwent LB: 167 (74%) were carried out by the G team, whereas 59 (26%) by the IR team. LB was mostly performed in a day hospital setting by the G team, while IR completed more procedures on inpatients (P < 0.0001). The groups did not differ in median age, body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbidities and coagulation parameters. Complications occurred in 26 patients (16 G team vs 10 IR team, P = 0.15). Most gross samples obtained were considered suitable for basal histological evaluation, with no difference among the two teams (96.4% G team vs 91.5% IR, P = 0.16). However, the samples obtained by the G team had a higher mean number of portal tracts (G team 9.5 ± 4.8; range 1-29 vs IR team 7.8 ± 4.1; range 1-20) (P = 0.0192) and a longer mean length (G team 22 mm ± 8.8 vs IR team 15 ± 6.5 mm) (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION:LB can be performed with similar outcomes both by G and IR. Use of larger dimension needles allows obtaining better samples, with a similar rate of adverse events.
Authors: Evangelos Cholongitas; Marco Senzolo; Richard Standish; Laura Marelli; Alberto Quaglia; David Patch; Amar P Dhillon; Andrew Kenneth Burroughs Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Don C Rockey; Stephen H Caldwell; Zachary D Goodman; Rendon C Nelson; Alastair D Smith Journal: Hepatology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: R J Farrell; P F Smiddy; R M Pilkington; A A Tobin; E E Mooney; I J Temperley; G S McDonald; H A Bowmer; G F Wilson; D Kelleher Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: K D Lindor; C Bru; R A Jorgensen; J Rakela; J M Bordas; J B Gross; J Rodes; D B McGill; C C Reading; E M James; J W Charboneau; J Ludwig; K P Batts; A R Zinsmeister Journal: Hepatology Date: 1996-05 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Thomas D Schiano; Samia Azeem; Carol A Bodian; Henry C Bodenheimer; Sukma Merati; Swan N Thung; Prodromos Hytiroglou Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.382