Abstract

Background and Aims: Previous studies confirm endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can complete liver biopsy, paracentesis and EGD during one procedure. This study evaluates translating these studies to a community hospital.

Methods: 17 patients requiring EUS liver biopsy were compared to 17 transcutaneous patients for quality, cost and safety. This included evaluation for varices and diagnostic paracentesis.

Results: Mean number of portal triads was 12.7 EUS vs. 12.4 percutaneous (p value 0.89). Mean length of the longest core 0.94 EUS vs. 1.06 cm percutaneous (p value 0.14). Etiology of hepatitis 4/7 EUS vs. 0/4 percutaneous (p value 0.03). Confirmation of cirrhosis 4/6 EUS vs. 1/3 percutaneous. Total cost $1705 EUS vs. $3984 percutaneous. No significant complications occurred.

Conclusion: No significant biopsy sample differences existed. EUS provided better diagnostic information and clearly has economic advantages. The benefits of EUS guided liver workup translate to a community hospital.

Keywords: EUS; Liver; Biopsy; Aspiration; Varices; Banding; Ascites; Fine Needle; Portal; Hepatic; Cirrhosis; Percutaneous; Bleeding; Banding; Adequacy; Portal Triads; Fibrosis

References

1. Rockey D., et al. “AASLD Position Paper: Liver Biopsy”. Hepatology 49 (2009): 1017-1044.
2. Runyon B. “AASLD Practice Guidelines - Management of Adult Patients with Ascites Due to Cirrhosis: Update 2012”. Alexandria, VA American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (2012): 1-96.
3. Garcia-Tsao G., et al. “Portal Hypertensive Bleeding in Cirrhosis: Risk Stratification, Diagnosis, and Management: 2016 Practice Guidance by the AASLD”. Hepatology1 (2017): 310-335.
4. Diehl D., et al. “Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy: a Multicenter Experience”. Endoscopy International Open3 (2015): E210-E215.
5. Sharma V., et al. “Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration from Ascites and Peritoneal Nodules: A Scoping Review”. Endoscopic Ultrasound6 (2017): 382-388.
6. Shah N., et al. “Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Parenchymal Liver Biopsy: Single Center Experience of a New Dedicated Core Needle”. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 15 (2017): 784-786.
7. Schulman A., et al. “Optimizing EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling: comprehensive assessment of needle types and tissue acquisition techniques”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2 (2017): 419-426.
8. Stavropoulos S., et al. “High yield of same-session EUS-guided liver biopsy by 19-gauge FNA needle in patients undergoing EUS to exclude biliary obstruction”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2 (2012): 310-318.
9. Regev A., et al. “Sampling error and intra observer variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection”. American Journal of Gastroenterology 10 (2002): 2614-2618.
10. Dept of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare program: Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment Systems and Quality Reporting Programs Final Rule (2018).
11. Mok SRS., et al. “A prospective pilot comparison of wet and dry heparinized suction for EUS-guided liver biopsy”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 6 (2018): 919-925.
12. Nakanishi Y., et al. “One hundred thirteen consecutive transgastric liver biopsies for hepatic parenchymal diseases: a single-institution study”. American Journal of Surgical Pathology 7 (2015): 968-976.

Citation

Citation: Matthew M Eves., et al. “EUS Guided Liver Workup Versus Percutaneous Guided in a Community Hospital”.Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders 3.8 (2020): 28-34.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Matthew M Eves., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.