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

Ahmad H Ali, Naren S Nallapeta, Muhammad N Yousaf, Gregory F Petroski, Neal Sharma, Deepthi S Rao, Feng Yin, Ryan M Davis, Ambarish Bhat, Ahmed I A Swi, Alhareth Al-Juboori, Jamal A Ibdah, Ghassan M Hammoud, Ahmad H Ali, Naren S Nallapeta, Muhammad N Yousaf, Gregory F Petroski, Neal Sharma, Deepthi S Rao, Feng Yin, Ryan M Davis, Ambarish Bhat, Ahmed I A Swi, Alhareth Al-Juboori, Jamal A Ibdah, Ghassan M Hammoud

Abstract

Background and objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: EUS-guided liver biopsy was safe, effective, better tolerated, and associated with a shorter hospital stay.

Keywords: Complete portal tracts; EUS; Efficacy; Fine needle biopsy; Histological diagnosis; Liver biopsy; Percutaneous; Safety.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of Scholar Media Publishing.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A, Linear regression showing the relationship between the number of complete portal tracts and the total length of LB core in the entire cohort. B, Number of complete portal tracts and total length of LB core in the PC-LB group. C, Number of complete portal tracts and total length of LB core in the EUS-LB group. D, Number of complete portal tracts and the number of passes in the entire cohort. E, Number of complete portal tracts and the number of passes in the PC-LB group. F, Number of complete portal tracts and the number of passes in the EUS-LB group. The blue line represents the regression fit line, and the gray shaded area represents the 95% confidence interval. EUS-LB, EUS–guided liver biopsy; LB, liver biopsy; PC-LB, percutaneous liver biopsy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
An illustration of a comparison and the relationship between the medians of number of complete portal tracts and the number of passes in the PC-LB and EUS-LB groups. The lower and upper bar lines represent the minimum and maximum, respectively. The line inside each bar represents the median. The blue line represents the primary outcome reference line, that is, 11 complete portal tracts. EUS-LB, EUS–guided liver biopsy; PC-LB, percutaneous liver biopsy.

References

    1. Zeng K Jiang Z Yang J, et al. . Role of endoscopic ultrasound–guided liver biopsy: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2022;57:545–557.
    1. Ali AH Panchal S Rao DS, 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 2020;23:157–167.
    1. Baran B Kale S Patil P, et al. . Endoscopic ultrasound–guided parenchymal liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021;35:5546–5557.
    1. Chandan S Deliwala S Khan SR, et al. . EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Endosc Ultrasound 2023;12:171–180.
    1. Mohan BP Shakhatreh M Garg R, et al. . Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:238–246.e3.
    1. Facciorusso A Crinò SF Ramai D, et al. . Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound–guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;16:51–57.
    1. Bang JY Ward TJ Guirguis S, et al. . Radiology-guided percutaneous approach is superior to EUS for performing liver biopsies. Gut 2021;70:2224–2226.
    1. World Medical Association . World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013;310:2191–2194.
    1. Jensen MP Turner JA Romano JM, et al. . Comparative reliability and validity of chronic pain intensity measures. Pain 1999;83:157–162.
    1. Ferreira-Valente MA, Pais-Ribeiro JL, Jensen MP. Validity of four pain intensity rating scales. Pain 2011;152:2399–2404.
    1. Hashimoto R, Chang KJ. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided hepatic interventions. Dig Endosc 2021;33:54–65.
    1. Rockey DC Caldwell SH Goodman ZD, et al. . Liver biopsy. Hepatology 2009;49:1017–1044.
    1. Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001;344:495–500.
    1. Bedossa P, Dargère D, Paradis V. Sampling variability of liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003;38:1449–1457.
    1. Colloredo G Guido M Sonzogni A, et al. . Impact of liver biopsy size on histological evaluation of chronic viral hepatitis: the smaller the sample, the milder the disease. J Hepatol 2003;39:239–244.
    1. Crawford AR, Lin XZ, Crawford JM. The normal adult human liver biopsy: a quantitative reference standard. Hepatology 1998;28:323–331.
    1. Neuberger J Patel J Caldwell H, et al. . Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology. Gut 2020;69:1382–1403.
    1. Kleiner DE, Bedossa P. Liver histology and clinical trials for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis-perspectives from 2 pathologists. Gastroenterology 2015;149:1305–1308.
    1. Mayo MJ Parkes J Adams-Huet B, et al. . Prediction of clinical outcomes in primary biliary cirrhosis by serum enhanced liver fibrosis assay. Hepatology 2008;48:1549–1557.
    1. de Vries EMG de Krijger M Färkkilä M, et al. . Validation of the prognostic value of histologic scoring systems in primary sclerosing cholangitis: an international cohort study. Hepatology 2017;65:907–919.
    1. Lohse AW Sebode M Bhathal PS, et al. . Consensus recommendations for histological criteria of autoimmune hepatitis from the International AIH Pathology Group: Results of a workshop on AIH histology hosted by the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases and the European Society of Pathology: Results of a workshop on AIH histology hosted by the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases and the European Society of Pathology. Liver Int 2022;42:1058–10569.
    1. Dewitt J McGreevy K Cummings O, et al. . Initial experience with EUS-guided Tru-cut biopsy of benign liver disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:535–542.
    1. Stavropoulos SN Im GY Jlayer Z, et al. . High yield of same-session EUS-guided liver biopsy by 19-gauge FNA needle in patients undergoing EUS to exclude biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:310–318.
    1. Bhogal N Lamb B Arbeiter B, et al. . Safety and adequacy of endoscopic ultrasound–guided random liver biopsy in comparison with transjugular and percutaneous approaches. Endosc Int Open 2020;8:E1850–e1854.
    1. Facciorusso A Ramai D Conti Bellocchi MC, et al. . Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound–guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a two-center experience. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13.
    1. Pineda JJ Diehl DL Miao CL, et al. . EUS-guided liver biopsy provides diagnostic samples comparable with those via the percutaneous or transjugular route. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:360–365.
    1. Shuja A Alkhasawneh A Fialho A, et al. . Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies. Dig Liver Dis 2019;51:826–830.
    1. Hasan MK Kadkhodayan K Idrisov E, et al. . Endoscopic ultrasound–guided liver biopsy using a 22-G fine needle biopsy needle: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2019;51:818–824.
    1. Hashimoto R Lee DP Samarasena JB, et al. . Comparison of two specialized histology needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)–guided liver biopsy: a pilot study. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:1700–1706.
    1. Cholongitas E Senzolo M Standish R, et al. . A systematic review of the quality of liver biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:710–721.
    1. Palmer T Georgiades I Treanor D, et al. . Improved tissue sections for medical liver biopsies: a comparison of 16 vs 18 g biopsy needles using digital pathology. J Clin Pathol 2014;67:415–419.
    1. Tublin ME Blair R Martin J, et al. . Prospective study of the impact of liver biopsy core size on specimen adequacy and procedural complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;210:183–188.
    1. Scheuer PJ. Liver biopsy size matters in chronic hepatitis: bigger is better. Hepatology 2003;38:1356–1358.
    1. Chan J Alwahab Y Tilley C, et al. . Percutaneous medical liver core biopsies: correlation between tissue length and the number of portal tracts. J Clin Pathol 2010;63:655–656.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere