Ahmad Hassan Ali1, Sarjukumar Panchal1, Deepthi S Rao2, Yujun Gan2, Alhareth Al-Juboori1, Sami Samiullah1, Jamal A Ibdah1, Ghassan M Hammoud3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri-School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA. 2. Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences, University of Missouri-School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri-School of Medicine, One Hospital Drive, Columbia, MO, 65212, USA. hammoudg@health.missouri.edu.
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.
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.
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: Roberto J Firpi; Consuelo Soldevila-Pico; Manal F Abdelmalek; Giuseppe Morelli; Joel Judah; David R Nelson Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jonh J Pineda; David L Diehl; Chuan L Miao; Amitpal S Johal; Harshit S Khara; Ashok Bhanushali; Eric Z Chen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-08-22 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David L Diehl; Amitpal S Johal; Harshit S Khara; Stavros N Stavropoulos; Mohammed Al-Haddad; Jayapal Ramesh; Shyam Varadarajulu; Harry Aslanian; Stuart R Gordon; Frederick K Shieh; Jonh J Pineda-Bonilla; Theresa Dunkelberger; Dibson D Gondim; Eric Z Chen Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2015-02-27
Authors: Shiva Rangwani; Devarshi R Ardeshna; Khalid Mumtaz; Sean G Kelly; Samuel Y Han; Somashekar G Krishna Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 5.374
Authors: James Neuberger; Jai Patel; Helen Caldwell; Susan Davies; Vanessa Hebditch; Coral Hollywood; Stefan Hubscher; Salil Karkhanis; Will Lester; Nicholas Roslund; Rebecca West; Judith I Wyatt; Mathis Heydtmann Journal: Gut Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 23.059