EUS-guided Liver Research Articles

S3996 EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy in Pediatric Cholestasis: A Case Report of PSC/AIH Overlap Syndrome

S3996 EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy in Pediatric Cholestasis: A Case Report of PSC/AIH Overlap Syndrome

Adequacy, safety, and technical determinants of a modified EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling technique in patients with or without cirrhosis: a pilot study

Background and AimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) technique-related factors as a determinant of specimen yield have not been studied. We used a modified technique to study adequacy, safety and technical determinants in patients with or without cirrhosis. MethodsEUS-LB was performed with a 19G Franseen tip needle by wet heparinized suction. One or two passes with a variable number of actuations were taken, the end-point being the aspiration of blood. Primary outcomes were tissue core adequacy and definitive histologic diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a correlation between the number and depth of actuations with total specimen length (TSL), longest specimen length (LSL) and adverse events (AE). Early and late adverse events (AE) were also accessed. ResultsAdequate samples were seen in 48/50 and histologic diagnosis could be achieved in 49/50 patients. Mean TSL, LSL and depth of actuation were 7.98±3.74cm, 1.89±0.80cm and 4.29±0.98cm, respectively. The median complete portal tracts(CPT) were 23 (range, 7-50) and number of actuations was 7 (range, 4-12) The correlation between TSL with number and depth of actuation was r=0.71 vs 0.53 & r=0.55 vs 0.51 and for LSL were r=0.28 vs 0.11 & r=0.74 vs 0.55 in non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients respectively. No major and 7(14%) minor adverse events were observed. ConclusionsThis modified EUS-LB technique results in adequate tissue acquisition and is safe in non-cirrhotic and cirrhotic patients. Technical factors like the number and depth of actuations determine specimen yield.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of focal liver lesion.

In patients with liver tumors, the histopathology examination can assist in diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and therapeutic management strategy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition using fine needle aspiration (FNA) or more newly fine needle biopsy (FNB) is a well-developed technique in order to evaluate and differentiate the liver masses. The goal of the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is to provide an accurate sample for a histopathology examination. Therefore, malignant tumors such as hepatocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and liver metastasis or benign tumors such as liver adenoma, focal hyperplastic nodular tumors and cystic lesions can be accurately diagnosed using EUS-guided tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB using 19 or 22 Ga needle provide longer samples and a higher diagnostic accuracy in patients with liver masses when compared with EUS-FNA. Few data are available on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB when compared with percutaneously, ultrasound, computer tomography or transjugulary-guided liver biopsies. This review will discuss the EUS-guided tissue acquisition options in patients with liver tumors and its efficacy and safety in providing accurate samples. The results of the last studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy with other conventional techniques are presented. The EUS-guided tissue acquisition using FNB can be a suitable technique in suspected liver lesions in order to provide an accurate histopathology diagnosis, especially for those who require endoscopy.

Dynamic suction: a novel technique to optimize EUS-guided liver biopsy

Dynamic suction: a novel technique to optimize EUS-guided liver biopsy

EUS-guided liver palpation as a screening tool for advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with suspected metabolic dysfunction—associated steatotic liver disease: a pilot study

Background and AimsEndoscopic liver “palpation” can be performed by indenting the liver surface under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Indentation depth is measured with sonographic calipers. We hypothesize that fibrotic livers are more difficult to indent, and indentation can accurately predict liver fibrosis staging. We compared EUS-guided liver palpation to conventional screening modalities in patients with suspected metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). MethodsThis was a cross-sectional pilot study. Consecutive patients at three hospitals between 2021-2023 underwent EUS-guided palpation with liver biopsy. Liver palpation was compared to Fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), AST to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), NAFLD Fibrosis Score (NFS), and transient elastography in predicting fibrosis staging on histology. Area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curve analysis was performed. Results73 patients were included. Mean age was 49.1 and 71.2% were female. Mean body mass index was 41.1. Indentation depth was negatively correlated with fibrosis stage (Kruskal-Willis test, p<0.0001). EUS palpation demonstrated c-statistic of 0.79 and 0.95 discriminating advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis respectively. EUS-liver palpation was superior to NFS in predicting advanced fibrosis (p=0.0057) and superior to APRI and NFS predicting cirrhosis (p=0.0099 and 0.045 respectively). EUS palpation was not significantly different versus FIB-4. EUS palpation was superior to transient elastography in predicting cirrhosis (p=0.045). Using optimal cut-offs, indentation measurement ≤3.5mm yielded 100% predictive value ruling in advanced fibrosis, and ≥4.0mm yielded 100% predictive value ruling out cirrhosis. ConclusionsEUS liver palpation is a novel, accurate, and easy-to-use screening tool for advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with MASLD.

Diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

In hepatology, the clinical use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has experienced a notable increase in recent times. These applications range from the diagnosis to the treatment of various liver diseases. Therefore, this systematic review summarizes the evidence for the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of EUS in liver diseases. To examine and summarize the current available evidence of the possible roles of the EUS in making a suitable diagnosis in liver diseases as well as the therapeutic accuracy and efficacy. PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were extensively searched until October 2023. The methodological quality of the eligible articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In addition, statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Overall, 45 articles on EUS were included (28 on diagnostic role and 17 on therapeutic role). Pooled analysis demonstrated that EUS diagnostic tests had an accuracy of 92.4% for focal liver lesions (FLL) and 96.6% for parenchymal liver diseases. EUS-guided liver biopsies with either fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy had low complication rates when sampling FLL and parenchymal liver diseases (3.1% and 8.7%, respectively). Analysis of data from four studies showed that EUS-guided liver abscess had high clinical (90.7%) and technical success (90.7%) without significant complications. Similarly, EUS-guided interventions for the treatment of gastric varices (GV) have high technical success (98%) and GV obliteration rate (84%) with few complications (15%) and rebleeding events (17%). EUS in liver diseases is a promising technique with the potential to be considered a first-line therapeutic and diagnostic option in selected cases.

Comparing a 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle with a 22-gauge fine-needle biopsy needle for EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: a prospective randomized study

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) sampling is being increasingly used. We performed a prospective randomized trial to compare specimen adequacy of a 19-gauge fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle with a 22-gauge FNB Franseen tip needle for EUS-LB sampling. Forty-two consecutive patients referred for EUS-LB sampling were prospectively randomized to a 19-gauge or 22-gauge FNB needle. When the specimen with the 22-gauge needle was macroscopically inadequate, an additional pass with the 19-gauge needle was done. Bilobar EUS-LB sampling was performed with heparinized wet suction using 1 pass and 3 actuations per lobe. Descriptive statistics were computed for all variables. Biopsy sampling was performed for abnormal liver enzymes in 95.5% of patients (57% women; average age, 51 years). Five patients undergoing sampling with the 22-gauge FNB needle had macroscopically inadequate specimens and required additional biopsy sampling with the 19-gauge FNB needle. Mean preprocessing length of the longest tissue core was 21.5 ± 6.3mm with a 19-gauge FNB needle compared with 9.4 ± 5.5mm with the 22-gauge FNB needle (P< .001). Postprocessing specimens were significantly longer with 19-gauge than with 22-gauge FNB needles (17.4mm vs 6.8, P< .001). There were no adverse events, and postprocedure pain and discomfort was similar in both groups (14% for 19-gauge vs 10% for 22-gauge, P= .99). Liver core biopsy sampling using the 19-gauge FNB needle is superior to the 22-gauge FNB needle in terms of length of longest core and aggregate specimen length. Considerably more fragmentation of the 22-gauge cores occurs during tissue processing. No increased postprocedure pain or AEs were found with the 19-gauge needle. A 19-gauge FNB needle is preferred to the 22-gauge FNB needle for EUS-LB. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04806607.).

Endo-Hepatology: The Buzz Goes Much beyond Liver Biopsy—A Narrative Review

AbstractThe word endo-hepatology evokes many perceptions. Some believe it to be the emerging new interventional branch and some believe it to be an extension of endoscopy. Nonetheless, it has continued to evolve into an exciting area of active work. With the advent of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) based procedures, new vistas have opened up. EUS-guided liver biopsies, portal hypertension management, and multiple new procedures are being described. EUS also plays a large role in the management of patients in the peritransplant period. With this review, we present an overview of the role of EUS in the field of hepatology as well as during the peritransplant period and its applications.

Endohepatology in clinical practice: EUS-guided portal pressure measurement combined with EUS-guided liver biopsy and variceal screening and treatment in outpatients.

EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (PPG) is a novel technique that permits a true, direct measure of portal vein pressure and hepatic vein pressure. This article details our experience and lessons learned from 20 consecutive outpatient EUS-PPG procedures performed at a single center, along with simultaneous EUS-guided liver biopsy, variceal screening, and variceal banding. Data on the first 20 patients who underwent EUS-PPG at a single center were retrospectively viewed and analyzed. The effects of various liver diseases or other patient-related factors on the clinical and technical success of EUS-PPG measurements, as well as EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB), were evaluated. During the procedure, if esophageal varices were encountered, they were assessed, and if felt to be clinically indicated, endoscopic variceal ligation was performed. The 20 patients included 10 male and 10 female patients. All procedures were technically successful. In all patients, the portal vein and hepatic veins could be easily identified. One adverse event of bleeding occurred during the EUS-PPG measuring procedure. All 20 EUS-LBs were technically successful and yielded adequate samples for histological evaluations, with an average of 25 complete portal tracts per sample. Among patients with esophageal varices, 40% of patients underwent banding. The mean EUS-PPG among 5 patients with esophageal varices was 11.6 mm Hg, compared with 3.2 mm Hg among 15 patients without esophageal varices. This study demonstrates that EUS-PPG is a novel, safe, reproducible, and effective technique. Also, the fact that EUS-PPG, EUS-LB, variceal screening, and variceal banding could be performed in 1 session and on an outpatient basis speaks to the growing relevance and impact of the nascent field of endohepatology.

The safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with concomitant endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review

IntroductionPortal hypertension (PH) is a complication of advanced liver disease. Traditionally, PH has been quantified using hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) through an indirect transjugular approach requiring ionizing radiation exposure. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided porto-systemic pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) measurement is an emerging alternative, minimally invasive technique that provides direct portal pressure measurement. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-PPG measurement and concomitant EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) in patients with chronic liver disease.MethodsThe preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses method was used. A PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CINAHL search for terms “endoscopic ultrasound,” “EUS,” and “portal pressure gradient” was used to identify qualifying studies. Eligible studies included those which were published before 2022, reporting outcomes of EUS-PPG measurement, simultaneous EUS-LB if applicable, and adverse events rate. Risk of bias was assessed by Egger’s test. Results were synthesized using I2 to test heterogeneity.ResultsFour published studies including 147 patients met inclusion criteria, with mean age 59.6 years, 59% male. Indications for EUS-PPG measurement were history of chronic liver disease or suspected cirrhosis, viral hepatitis, alcohol associated liver disease, hepatic sinusoidal obstruction or Budd Chiari syndrome. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-PPG measurements was 98.61% with 95% confidence interval of 95.20% - 99.82%. A 25-gauge needle was used in 92% (135/147) of patients. EUS-PPG measurement was performed through a transgastric approach in all 147 (100%) patients using a compact manometer with pressure transducer and non-compressible tubing. The mean PPG was 10.07 (range 6.44 – 13.70) mmHg. Ninety-five patients underwent simultaneous EUS-LB using 19G needle with wet suction technique. Technical success rate of EUS-LB was 100% and specimen was adequate in 99% (94/95) patients to establish histological diagnosis. There were no major life-threatening complications of the EUS-PPG procedure. Predominant adverse events were abdominal pain 6.1% (9/147) and sore throat 5.4% (8/147).ConclusionEUS-PPG measurement is safe and useful in providing an assessment of portal pressure in patients with chronic liver disease. Future studies are needed to evaluate whether there is consistent correlation between EUS-PPG measurements and histologic fibrosis stage by liver biopsy.

S1303 The Efficacy and Safety of EUS-Guided Portal Pressure Gradient with Concomitant EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease

S1303 The Efficacy and Safety of EUS-Guided Portal Pressure Gradient with Concomitant EUS-Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease

Liver Biopsy and Pressure Hemodynamics: GI Perspective

AbstractEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has come a long way from mere diagnostic modality to performing interventional procedures like fine needle aspiration, gastric varices glue and coiling, and management of pancreatic fluid collection along with necrosectomy. Recently, EUS-guided biopsy of the liver has gained traction. This coupled with the ability to access the portal vein and measure portal pressure has made comprehensive liver evaluation possible using endoscopic route. In this review, we will discuss evolution and techniques of performing EUS-guided liver biopsy and portal pressure gradient. We will also compare the merits and demerits as compared with the other conventional techniques.

Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Liver Biopsy in Diagnosing Stage 3-4 Fibrosis.

Percutaneous liver biopsy (P-bx) is the gold standard for diagnosing advanced fibrosis. Despite the proven technical feasibility of EUS-guided liver bx (EUS-bx) as a novel alternative way of liver biopsy, the clinical applicability remains to be determined. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate if EUS-bx, compared to P-bx, can effectively and safely obtain adequate specimen and accurately predict hepatic fibrosis. This is a single center, retrospective chart review among patients with liver diseases at a tertiary endoscopy center from February 2011 to March 2020. We assessed the EUS-bx versus P-bx outcomes by success rate, performance, and safety profile. The primary outcome was the association between EUS-bx clinical variables and the presence of histologic liver fibrosis stage ≥ 3. The secondary outcomes were the associations between EUS-bx and variables indicative of fibrosis. Fifty-nine patients underwent EUS-bx; and 59, P-bx. All EUS-bx procedures were successfully completed. All 56/56 (100%) of EUS-bx vs. 50/52 (96.2%) P-bx were considered adequate samples. Tissue lengths were significantly longer in the EUS-bx cohort (p < 0.0001) with a trend towards a greater number of portal tracts. 46/56 (82.1%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 32/52 (61.5%) of P-bx had > 10 portal tracts; 21/56 (37.5%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 14/52 (26.9%) of P-bx had > 15 portal tracts. There were 6 (10.2%) EUS-bx vs. 1 (1.7%) P-bx relatedcomplication leading to a phone call (p = 0.061). EUS-bx can safely performed and accurately predict liver fibrosis stage as the standard P-bx without being influenced by procedure-related factors.

“Two for one”: histologic diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori during EUS-guided liver biopsy

“Two for one”: histologic diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori during EUS-guided liver biopsy

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A prospective randomized clinical trial.

Prospective studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) to percutaneous LB (PC-LB) are scarce. We compared the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB with those of PC-LB in a prospective randomized clinical trial. Between 2020 and 2021, patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with ≥11 complete portal tracts (CPTs). The sample size (n = 80) was calculated based on the assumption that 60% of those in the EUS-LB and 90% of those in the PC-LB group will have LB with ≥11 CPTs. The secondary outcomes included proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established, number of CPTs, pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity), duration of hospital stay, and adverse events. Eighty patients were enrolled (median age, 53 years); 67.5% were female. Sixty percent of those in the EUS-LB and 75.0% of those in the PC-LB group met the primary outcome (P = 0.232). The median number of CPTs was higher in the PC-LB (17 vs 13; P = 0.031). The proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established was similar between the groups (92.5% [EUS-LB] vs 95.0% [PC-LB]; P = 1.0). Patients in the EUS-LB group had less pain severity (median Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, 2.0 vs 3.0; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs 4.0 hours; P < 0.0001) compared with the PC-LB group. No patient experienced a serious adverse event. EUS-guided liver biopsy was safe, effective, better tolerated, and associated with a shorter hospital stay.

EUS-guided liver biopsy using a novel hydrostatic stylet technique

Video 1Hydrostatic stylet technique for the performance of EUS-guided liver biopsy.

Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Liver Biopsy.

Recent years have seen the emergence of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) as an effective alternative to traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques. Comparative studies have demonstrated that both endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches are similar in terms of diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and adverse events; however, EUS-LB offers the advantage of reduced recovery time. Additionally, EUS-LB enables the sampling of both lobes of the liver as well as the advantage of portal pressure measurements. However, EUS-LB may be argued to have a high cost, although this procedure can be cost-effective if bundled with other endoscopic procedures. Approaches utilizing EUS-guided liver therapy, such as the administration of chemotherapeutic agents and EUS elastography, are in development, and their optimal integration into clinical care is likely to emerge in the coming years. In the present review, we evaluate the available literature on EUS-LB indications, contraindications, variations in needle biopsy techniques, comparative outcomes, advantages and disadvantages, and future trends and perspectives.

Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for diffuse liver diseases and its predictors - a multicentric retrospective analysis.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy (LB) has become an increasingly popular method of tissue acquisition for evaluating liver diseases. Despite its advantages, EUS-LB has not been widely adopted in clinical practice due to concerns regarding efficacy and safety. Present data on EUS-LB from India are scarce. We aimed to study the diagnostic outcome and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy. This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data from January 2021 to October 2022 of consecutive patients undergoing EUS-LB at four tertiary care centers in India. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, while secondary outcomes were rate of successful pathological diagnoses and incidence of adverse events (AE). A total of 74 patients (median age: 44.5 years, 50.0% males) were included. The majority of the patients underwent left-lobe biopsy (62/74, 83.7%), and a 19-G Franseen FNB needle was most commonly used (61/74, 82.4%). Wet heparin suction was used in most cases (60/74, 81.1%). There were five mild AEs observed (one case of self-limited bleeding and four cases of post-procedural pain). Adequate and optimal samples were obtained in 71 (95.9%) and 49 (66.2%) cases, with a conclusive diagnosis being made in 97.3% (72/74) of the patients. On multivariate analysis, the presence of ascites was a negative predictor of optimal sample (odds ratio [OR] = 0.128, 95% CI: 0.017-0.96). EUS-LB is a safe and viable alternative to percutaneous liver biopsy, achieving diagnosis in > 95% of cases. EUS-LB can be performed safely even in patients with mild ascites, although ascites reduces the chances of getting an optimal sample.

Evolution of interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an indispensable modality for the assessment of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures since its origin in the 1980s. Following the development of the linear echoendoscope, EUS has evolved from a purely diagnostic modality to a sophisticated tool for intervention, with numerous luminal, pancreaticobiliary, and hepatic applications. Broadly, these applications may be subdivided into three categories: transluminal drainage or access procedures, injection therapy, and EUS-guided liver interventions. Transluminal drainage or access procedures include management of pancreatic fluid collection, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided bile duct drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage, and enteral anastomosis formation. Injection therapies include therapeutic EUS-guided injections for management of malignancies accessible by EUS. EUS-guided liver applications include EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, and EUS-guided vascular therapies. In this review, we discuss the origins of each of these EUS applications, evolution of techniques leading to the current status, and future directions of EUS-guided interventional therapy.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of outcomes.

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7-99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6-98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.