Safety of percutaneous versus transjugular liver biopsy: A propensity score matched analysis

Successful diagnosis of a localized liver tumor via transjugular liver biopsy after ascites hampered a percutaneous approach

Liver biopsy is a crucial diagnostic procedure for liver-related conditions. However, it is challenging to use in cases with substantial ascites or coagulopathy. Transjugular liver biopsy has been introduced as an alternative method to overcome these limitations. Although transjugular liver biopsy is commonly used for diffuse liver diseases, its application to localized tumors has been limited. We report the case of a 66-year-old male initially diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic carcinoma, who later developed liver metastasis, peritoneal dissemination, and ascites. Treatment planning required tumor re-evaluation, but percutaneous liver biopsy was not viable because of the rapid accumulation of ascites and its presence on the liver surface. However, transjugular liver biopsy was a suitable alternative, given the proximity of the tumor to the right hepatic vein. The procedure, performed under fluoroscopic and ultrasound guidance, successfully obtained 4 specimens that were promptly diagnosed as liver metastases originating from pancreatic cancer. This case underscored the effectiveness of transjugular liver biopsy in situations where percutaneous biopsy is challenging because of conditions such as ascites. The combination of ultrasound guidance and rapid specimen assessment by pathology technicians can enhance diagnostic success rates. Transjugular liver biopsy is a valuable diagnostic tool in scenarios where percutaneous access poses significant difficulties.

Comparison of the Safety of Transjugular and Percutaneous Liver Biopsies

PURPOSE

To compare adverse events (AEs) between the transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) and percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) approaches.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1,300 patients who underwent liver biopsy between July 1, 2014 and January 31, 2018, were examined, and bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine predictors of the biopsy method used and AEs. To reduce bias in the comparison of the AE rates between patients who had TJLB or PLB, propensity score matching was used to control for baseline disease severity.

RESULTS

PLB and TJLB were performed in 601 and 699 patients, respectively. The mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 3 (±2), and antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy at the time of biopsy was used in <10% of patients. Patients with suspected cirrhosis or portal hypertension (odds ratio [OR], 9.9), an international normalized ratio of >1.5 (OR, 5.9), or a platelet count of <100 × 103/mL (OR, 3.9) were more likely to undergo TJLB. After propensity matching, which identified a population of patients with a mean international normalized ratio of <1.5 and platelet count of >150 × 103/mL, the only difference in the AE rate was for pain, which was present in 8% and 10% of patients after TJLB and PLB, respectively (P < .001). Bleeding requiring transfusion occurred in 2 patients who underwent TJLB and 1 patient who underwent PLB. There was 1 case of death occurring after TJLB.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe/life-threatening AEs occurring after liver biopsy were uncommon, and the 2 liver biopsy approaches appeared to have similar safety profiles for low-risk patients. After matching for underlying disease severity, pain was the AE that was more likely to occur in patients who underwent PLB.

Update on endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy

Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a minimally-invasive alternative to the traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. Po-tentially, EUS-LB combines the advantages of percutaneous and transjugular liver biopsy in addressing focused sampling in addition to measuring portal pressure. Additionally, EUS-LB facilitates access to both the lobes of the liver which is not considered with the traditional percutaneous liver biopsy. Multiple studies have compared EUS-LB with conventional liver biopsy and reported comparable diagnostic yield, increased acquisition of complete portal tracts, and longer specimen length as compared to the traditional approaches. EUS-LB is associated with lesser post-procedural pain and shorter recovery time, while providing lower risk of complications when compared to traditional liver biopsy. Innovations in needle types, needle sizes and suction techniques have aimed at further optimizing the EUS-LB technique. This review article updates current literature with focus on the variations in the technique and equipment used for EUS-LB, and compares EUS-LB with traditional methods of liver biopsy.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

Clinical Usefulness of Transjugular Liver Biopsy in Patients With Hematological Diseases With Liver Dysfunction

Introduction

Transjugular liver biopsy (TJLB) is indicated for patients in whom percutaneous liver biopsy is contraindicated, such as those with hematological diseases complicated by liver dysfunction. However, the clinical utility of TJLB in this group of patients has not been thoroughly investigated. The objective of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of TJLB in patients with hematological diseases complicated by liver dysfunction.

Methods

We analyzed the data of patients who developed liver disorders during treatment for hematological diseases at our hospital and required tissue diagnosis via TJLB. The clinical features of patients were analyzed.

Results

Twenty-seven patients (mean age, 60.07 years; 12 men, 15 women) requiring tissue diagnoses via TJLB after developing liver disorders while undergoing treatment for hematological diseases were enrolled. One patient with autoimmune hemolytic anemia was diagnosed with drug-induced liver injury; two patients with amyloidosis had nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; one patient with acute promyelocytic leukemia had a drug-induced liver injury; one patient with chronic myelomonocytic leukemia had liver infiltration caused by an underlying disease; three patients with idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura had autoimmune hepatitis; four patients with malignant lymphoma had liver infiltration by the underlying disease, and one patient with multiple myeloma had liver disorder caused by disseminated intravascular coagulation. Moreover, one patient had hepatitis B reactivation, another had hepatitis E, and six patients had a drug-induced liver injury. The treatment regimen was altered in cases of liver infiltration caused by the underlying disease, and the drug was changed for patients with drug-induced liver injury.

Conclusion

The etiology of liver disorders in patients with hematological diseases varies widely. Therefore, histological diagnosis using TJLB is useful to determine an appropriate therapeutic strategy for underlying hematological diseases.

[Alternatives of histological material collection - When and how is histological confirmation by ultrasound (US), computer tomography (CT) or endosonography (EUS) useful?]

Histological classifications of tumorous lesions together with adequate staging are necessary for stage-appropriate and personalized therapies. The indications, technical possibilities, and limitations as well as potential complications of image-guided needle biopsy by ultrasound, computed tomography, and endosonography are described. Which procedure for which organ and which lesion?

Current state of endohepatology: Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications with endoscopic ultrasound

The diagnosis and management of cirrhosis and portal hypertension (PH) with its complications including variceal hemorrhage, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy continues to evolve. Although there are established “standards of care” in liver biopsy and measurement of PH, gastric varices remain an area without a universally accepted therapeutic approach. The concept of “Endo Hepatology” has been used to describe of the applications of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to these challenges. EUS-liver biopsy (EUS-LB) offers an alternative to percutaneous and transjuglar liver biopsy without compromising safety or efficacy, and with added advantages including the potential to reduce sampling error by allowing biopsies in both hepatic lobes. Furthermore, EUS-LB can be performed during the same procedure as EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (PPG) measurements, allowing for the collection of valuable diagnostic and prognostic data. EUS-guided PPG measurements provide an appealing alternative to the transjugular approach, with proposed advantages including the ability to directly measure portal vein pressure. In addition, EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices (GV) offers several possible advantages to current therapies. EUS-guided treatment of GV allows detailed assessment of the vascular anatomy, similar efficacy and safety to current therapies, and allows the evaluation of treatment effect through doppler ultrasound visualization. The appropriate selection of patients for these procedures is paramount to ensuring generation of useful clinical data and patient safety.

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Two-Center Experience

Simple Summary

Traditionally, liver biopsy has been performed by percutaneous radiology-guided methods. Advances in endoscopic ultrasound have demonstrated the efficacy of endoscopic based techniques for liver biopsy. Studies comparing both methods are scarce and have conflicting results. Our study compares percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasound methods for liver biopsy. Our analysis shows no evidence to support the wide use of endoscopic ultrasound. Percutaneous liver biopsy remains the sampling method of choice in this field.

Abstract

There is scarce and conflicting evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and percutaneous (PC)-guided liver biopsy (LB). The aim of this study was to compare the two approaches in a series of patients with parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Fifty-four patients undergoing EUS-LB in two high-volume centers between 2017 and 2021 were compared to 62 patients who underwent PC-LB. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy rate. The secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, total sample length (TSL), number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), procedural duration, and adverse events. Variables were compared using the Chi-square and Mann–Whitney test. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range 48–69) in the EUS-LB group and 54 years (45–67) in the PC-LB group with most patients being male. Indication for LB was due to parenchymal disease in 50% of patients, whereas the other patients underwent LB due to focal liver lesions. Diagnostic adequacy was 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in the EUS-LB group (p = 0.74), whereas diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% in the EUS-LB group and 100% in the PC-LB group (p = 0.82). Median TSL was significantly greater in the PC-LB group (27.4 mm, IQR 21–29) when compared to the EUS-LB group (18.5 mm, 10.1–22.4; p = 0.02). The number of complete portal tracts was 21 (11–24) in the PC-LB group and 18.5 (10–23.2) in EUS-LB group (p = 0.09). EUS-LB was a significantly longer procedure (7 min, 5–11 versus 1 min, 1–3 of PC-LB; p < 0.001) and no evidence of adverse events was observed in any of the study groups. These results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis performed according to an indication for LB (parenchymal disease versus focal lesion). Although PC-LB yielded specimens with greater TSL, diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were similar between the two procedures.

When steroids are not enough in immune-related hepatitis: current clinical challenges discussed on the basis of a case report

Immune-related hepatitis (IRH) is a frequent but poorly understood immune-related adverse event and its frequency increases since the use of combination therapy in several cancer types. Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop adapted guidelines to manage IRH. In the present letter, based on Ziogas et al report entitled ‘When steroids are not enough in immune-related hepatitis: current clinical challenges discussed on the basis of a case report’, several points are discussed: assessment of IRH severity and liver biopsy indication, immune-related cholangitis as a differential diagnosis for some IRH presentation, the need of steroids for IRH management or the indication for second line immunosuppressive treatment and finally, the possibility of immunotherapy resumption.