Although the use of liver biopsy (LB) has decreased with the emerging non-invasive markers and techniques to evaluate liver fibrosis, histopathologic examination of liver tissue is necessary to confirm the type of liver injury. The aim of our study is to compare two methods for obtaining histological material from the liver: the percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) and the Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB)
LB remains the gold standard diagnostic test for most of the focal and parenchymal liver diseases. LB has an important diagnostic role in selected parenchymal liver diseases such as autoimmune hepatitis and infiltrative liver disorders, and in some cases, it helps clinicians to elucidate between overlapping diagnoses Traditionally, percutaneous (PLB) or transjugular approaches have been used to acquire liver samples. In recent tears EUS has emerged as an alternative and safe method to obtain liver samples, by puncturing the liver from the gastric or duodenal wall. In fact, EUS-guided LB has been shown equal or superior compared to PLB and transjugular approaches in retrospective series. EUS - LB has shown to produce excellent histological performance based on liver society guidelines requirements for parameters used in assessing histological yield which include the number of complete portal triads (CPT), sample size and total specimen length (TSL) with a low rate of adverse events EUS - LB has several advantages over the traditional liver biopsy methods: it provides simultaneous access to both liver lobes, enables real-time visualization avoiding the puncture of a large vessel and then reducing the rate of complications, it allows to perform a simultaneously endoscopic and endosonography evaluation of the pancreatobiliary system and it could decrease the level of the anxiety of patients (by the use of deep sedation) and then perhaps increasing the satisfaction with the procedure Despite the fact of the high diagnostic yield of EUS-LB in obtaining adequate samples from the liver and the low rate of adverse events reported with this method, there is an almost complete lack of randomized trials comparing EUS - LB with the traditional percutaneous route. The aim of our study is to compare the quality of samples obtained and the diagnostic efficacy of EUS - LB against PLB in all patients that have an indication for a liver biopsy
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
92
Percutaneous liver biopsy using a 16 gauge (G) Trucut needle.
EUS-guided liver biopsy using a 19 gauge (G) Franseen core EUS needle
Hospital Clinico Universitario de Santiago
Santiago de Compostela, A Coruña, Spain
Quality of tissue samples obtained by EUS-guided liver biopsy compared to percutaneous liver biopsy.
The quality of samples is based in the combination of a specimen length \>20 mms and more than 10 complete portal triads (both conditions are required).
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided liver biopsy compared to percutaneous liver biopsy.
Percentage of samples allowing an adequate histological diagnosis.
Time frame: Up to 2 weeks
Adverse events associated with EUS-guided liver biopsy compared to percutaneous liver biopsy.
Adverse events evaluated according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon.
Time frame: At 1 hour, 4 hours, 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days
Patient satisfaction after EUS-guided liver biopsy compared to percutaneous liver biopsy.
Satisfaction survey that includes five points; four are questions scored from 1: bad to 5: excellent; and one is a dichotomic question (Yes/No). Survey will be performed 24 hours after the procedure by phone call.
Time frame: 24 hours
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.