Jerome C Edelson1,2, Natalie E Mitchell3, Don C Rockey4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2. Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD. 3. Department of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. 4. Digestive Disease Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses the most recent studies regarding the emerging field of endohepatology - the use of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic tools for the management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: New research has shown that liver biopsy specimens obtained by each Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guidance, the percutaneous approach, and the transjugular approach contained sufficient portal triads to adequately analyzed by experienced pathologists - suggesting that any of these routes of liver biopsy is clinically acceptable; further, all had similar rates of adverse events. An initial prospective study showed that EUS guided portal pressure measurement was safe, effective, and accurate. A recent metanalysis showed that EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization was statistically more efficacious and with less complications than EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and EUS guided coil injection alone, suggesting that combination therapy appears to be the preferred approach for gastric varices (GV) bleeding. A prospective study evaluating focal liver lesions showed that the use of artificial intelligence had up to 100% sensitivity and 81% specificity for identifying malignant focal liver lesions. SUMMARY: EUS guided liver biopsy is safe and enables accurate diagnosis of underlying liver disease. EUS guided portal pressure measurement is also safe and is accurate. Combination therapy of EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization is more efficacious and has less complications than injection or coil therapy alone when used for GV bleeding. Artificial intelligence is highly sensitive and specific when used in conjunction with EUS in the diagnosis of malignant focal liver lesions. Endohepatology is a rapidly expanding field with great potential.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article discusses the most recent studies regarding the emerging field of endohepatology - the use of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic tools for the management of patients with liver disease and portal hypertension. RECENT FINDINGS: New research has shown that liver biopsy specimens obtained by each Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guidance, the percutaneous approach, and the transjugular approach contained sufficient portal triads to adequately analyzed by experienced pathologists - suggesting that any of these routes of liver biopsy is clinically acceptable; further, all had similar rates of adverse events. An initial prospective study showed that EUS guided portal pressure measurement was safe, effective, and accurate. A recent metanalysis showed that EUS-guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization was statistically more efficacious and with less complications than EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and EUS guided coil injection alone, suggesting that combination therapy appears to be the preferred approach for gastric varices (GV) bleeding. A prospective study evaluating focal liver lesions showed that the use of artificial intelligence had up to 100% sensitivity and 81% specificity for identifying malignant focal liver lesions. SUMMARY: EUS guided liver biopsy is safe and enables accurate diagnosis of underlying liver disease. EUS guided portal pressure measurement is also safe and is accurate. Combination therapy of EUS guided cyanoacrylate injection and coil embolization is more efficacious and has less complications than injection or coil therapy alone when used for GV bleeding. Artificial intelligence is highly sensitive and specific when used in conjunction with EUS in the diagnosis of malignant focal liver lesions. Endohepatology is a rapidly expanding field with great potential.
Authors: Babu P Mohan; Mohammed Shakhatreh; Rajat Garg; Suresh Ponnada; Douglas G Adler Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-10-31 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: R J Groszmann; J Bosch; N D Grace; H O Conn; G Garcia-Tsao; M Navasa; J Alberts; J Rodes; R Fischer; M Bermann Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Priyajit Prasad; Nathan Schmulewitz; Alpesh Patel; Shyam Varadarajulu; Stephan M Wildi; Stacey Roberts; Radu Tutuian; Peter King; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Michael B Wallace Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Yasser M Bhat; Frank Weilert; R Todd Fredrick; Steven D Kane; Janak N Shah; Chris M Hamerski; Kenneth F Binmoeller Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Joana Magalhães; Sara Monteiro; Sofia Xavier; Sílvia Leite; Francisca Dias de Castro; José Cotter Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-08-16
Authors: Daniel V T Catenacci; Christopher G Chapman; Peng Xu; Ann Koons; Vani J Konda; Uzma D Siddiqui; Irving Waxman Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-09-02 Impact factor: 22.682