Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies

Asim Shuja, Ahmad Alkhasawneh, Andre Fialho, Andrea Fialho, Amal Shukri, Ciel Harris, Carmen Smotherman, Miguel Malespin, Silvio del Melo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Liver biopsy through endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a novel approach for tissue acquisition. We aim to evaluate the adequacy of EUS-guided liver biopsies in comparison to those obtained through interventional radiology (IR) techniques. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed of all IR (transjugular or image-guided percutaneous) and EUS-guided liver biopsies performed at an academic medical center from January 2016 to January 2018. Patient demographics, histologic characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Results: 152 procedures were included for analysis. 45% of liver biopsies were performed through EUS-guidance. The most common indication for liver biopsy was NASH fibrosis staging (n = 64). IR-guided biopsies contained a higher number of complete portal triads (13.6 vs. 10.8 p ≤ 0.01) while EUS-guided biopsies produced an increased total specimen length (4.6 cm vs. 3.6 cm p ≤ 0.01).47% of biopsy samples were fragmented with the majority of these (72%) occurring with EUS-guided procedures (p ≤ 0.01). IR-guided biopsies led to more complications in comparison to EUS-guided procedures (p = 0.03) Conclusion: Liver biopsies performed through EUS-guidance are comparable to IR-guided liver biopsies and may have an enhanced safety profile with acceptable tissue acquisition characteristics. Standardization of techniques and needles is needed for optimization of tissue sampling.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalDigestive and Liver Disease
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Biopsy
Interventional Radiology
Liver
Needles
Fibrosis
Demography
Safety

Keywords

  • Complications
  • Liver biopsy
  • Tissue adequacy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hepatology
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies. / Shuja, Asim; Alkhasawneh, Ahmad; Fialho, Andre; Fialho, Andrea; Shukri, Amal; Harris, Ciel; Smotherman, Carmen; Malespin, Miguel; del Melo, Silvio.

In: Digestive and Liver Disease, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Shuja, Asim ; Alkhasawneh, Ahmad ; Fialho, Andre ; Fialho, Andrea ; Shukri, Amal ; Harris, Ciel ; Smotherman, Carmen ; Malespin, Miguel ; del Melo, Silvio. / Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies. In: Digestive and Liver Disease. 2019.
@article{44446c7ae7bc4ace8663c6d4b7c9e89b,
title = "Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies",
abstract = "Background: Liver biopsy through endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a novel approach for tissue acquisition. We aim to evaluate the adequacy of EUS-guided liver biopsies in comparison to those obtained through interventional radiology (IR) techniques. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed of all IR (transjugular or image-guided percutaneous) and EUS-guided liver biopsies performed at an academic medical center from January 2016 to January 2018. Patient demographics, histologic characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Results: 152 procedures were included for analysis. 45{\%} of liver biopsies were performed through EUS-guidance. The most common indication for liver biopsy was NASH fibrosis staging (n = 64). IR-guided biopsies contained a higher number of complete portal triads (13.6 vs. 10.8 p ≤ 0.01) while EUS-guided biopsies produced an increased total specimen length (4.6 cm vs. 3.6 cm p ≤ 0.01).47{\%} of biopsy samples were fragmented with the majority of these (72{\%}) occurring with EUS-guided procedures (p ≤ 0.01). IR-guided biopsies led to more complications in comparison to EUS-guided procedures (p = 0.03) Conclusion: Liver biopsies performed through EUS-guidance are comparable to IR-guided liver biopsies and may have an enhanced safety profile with acceptable tissue acquisition characteristics. Standardization of techniques and needles is needed for optimization of tissue sampling.",
keywords = "Complications, Liver biopsy, Tissue adequacy",
author = "Asim Shuja and Ahmad Alkhasawneh and Andre Fialho and Andrea Fialho and Amal Shukri and Ciel Harris and Carmen Smotherman and Miguel Malespin and {del Melo}, Silvio",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.dld.2019.01.006",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Digestive and Liver Disease",
issn = "1590-8658",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies

AU - Shuja, Asim

AU - Alkhasawneh, Ahmad

AU - Fialho, Andre

AU - Fialho, Andrea

AU - Shukri, Amal

AU - Harris, Ciel

AU - Smotherman, Carmen

AU - Malespin, Miguel

AU - del Melo, Silvio

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Liver biopsy through endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a novel approach for tissue acquisition. We aim to evaluate the adequacy of EUS-guided liver biopsies in comparison to those obtained through interventional radiology (IR) techniques. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed of all IR (transjugular or image-guided percutaneous) and EUS-guided liver biopsies performed at an academic medical center from January 2016 to January 2018. Patient demographics, histologic characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Results: 152 procedures were included for analysis. 45% of liver biopsies were performed through EUS-guidance. The most common indication for liver biopsy was NASH fibrosis staging (n = 64). IR-guided biopsies contained a higher number of complete portal triads (13.6 vs. 10.8 p ≤ 0.01) while EUS-guided biopsies produced an increased total specimen length (4.6 cm vs. 3.6 cm p ≤ 0.01).47% of biopsy samples were fragmented with the majority of these (72%) occurring with EUS-guided procedures (p ≤ 0.01). IR-guided biopsies led to more complications in comparison to EUS-guided procedures (p = 0.03) Conclusion: Liver biopsies performed through EUS-guidance are comparable to IR-guided liver biopsies and may have an enhanced safety profile with acceptable tissue acquisition characteristics. Standardization of techniques and needles is needed for optimization of tissue sampling.

AB - Background: Liver biopsy through endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a novel approach for tissue acquisition. We aim to evaluate the adequacy of EUS-guided liver biopsies in comparison to those obtained through interventional radiology (IR) techniques. Methods: A retrospective single-center analysis was performed of all IR (transjugular or image-guided percutaneous) and EUS-guided liver biopsies performed at an academic medical center from January 2016 to January 2018. Patient demographics, histologic characteristics, and clinical outcomes were collected. Results: 152 procedures were included for analysis. 45% of liver biopsies were performed through EUS-guidance. The most common indication for liver biopsy was NASH fibrosis staging (n = 64). IR-guided biopsies contained a higher number of complete portal triads (13.6 vs. 10.8 p ≤ 0.01) while EUS-guided biopsies produced an increased total specimen length (4.6 cm vs. 3.6 cm p ≤ 0.01).47% of biopsy samples were fragmented with the majority of these (72%) occurring with EUS-guided procedures (p ≤ 0.01). IR-guided biopsies led to more complications in comparison to EUS-guided procedures (p = 0.03) Conclusion: Liver biopsies performed through EUS-guidance are comparable to IR-guided liver biopsies and may have an enhanced safety profile with acceptable tissue acquisition characteristics. Standardization of techniques and needles is needed for optimization of tissue sampling.

KW - Complications

KW - Liver biopsy

KW - Tissue adequacy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061195429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061195429&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dld.2019.01.006

DO - 10.1016/j.dld.2019.01.006

M3 - Article

JO - Digestive and Liver Disease

JF - Digestive and Liver Disease

SN - 1590-8658

ER -