Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023
Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Liver Biopsy in Diagnosing Stage 3-4 Fibrosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Choi Alyssa Y, Li Xiaodong, Guo Wenchang, Chandan Vishal S, Samarasena Jason, Lee John G, Chang Kenneth J, Hu Ke-Qin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous liver biopsy (P-bx) is the gold standard for diagnosing advanced fibrosis. Despite the proven technical feasibility of EUS-guided liver bx (EUS-bx) as a novel alternative way of liver biopsy, the clinical applicability remains to be determined.
AIMS: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate if EUS-bx, compared to P-bx, can effectively and safely obtain adequate specimen and accurately predict hepatic fibrosis.
METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective chart review among patients with liver diseases at a tertiary endoscopy center from February 2011 to March 2020. We assessed the EUS-bx versus P-bx outcomes by success rate, performance, and safety profile. The primary outcome was the association between EUS-bx clinical variables and the presence of histologic liver fibrosis stage ≥ 3. The secondary outcomes were the associations between EUS-bx and variables indicative of fibrosis.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients underwent EUS-bx; and 59, P-bx. All EUS-bx procedures were successfully completed. All 56/56 (100%) of EUS-bx vs. 50/52 (96.2%) P-bx were considered adequate samples. Tissue lengths were significantly longer in the EUS-bx cohort (p < 0.0001) with a trend towards a greater number of portal tracts. 46/56 (82.1%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 32/52 (61.5%) of P-bx had > 10 portal tracts; 21/56 (37.5%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 14/52 (26.9%) of P-bx had > 15 portal tracts. There were 6 (10.2%) EUS-bx vs. 1 (1.7%) P-bx related complication leading to a phone call (p = 0.061).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-bx can safely performed and accurately predict liver fibrosis stage as the standard P-bx without being influenced by procedure-related factors.
AIMS: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate if EUS-bx, compared to P-bx, can effectively and safely obtain adequate specimen and accurately predict hepatic fibrosis.
METHODS: This is a single center, retrospective chart review among patients with liver diseases at a tertiary endoscopy center from February 2011 to March 2020. We assessed the EUS-bx versus P-bx outcomes by success rate, performance, and safety profile. The primary outcome was the association between EUS-bx clinical variables and the presence of histologic liver fibrosis stage ≥ 3. The secondary outcomes were the associations between EUS-bx and variables indicative of fibrosis.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients underwent EUS-bx; and 59, P-bx. All EUS-bx procedures were successfully completed. All 56/56 (100%) of EUS-bx vs. 50/52 (96.2%) P-bx were considered adequate samples. Tissue lengths were significantly longer in the EUS-bx cohort (p < 0.0001) with a trend towards a greater number of portal tracts. 46/56 (82.1%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 32/52 (61.5%) of P-bx had > 10 portal tracts; 21/56 (37.5%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 14/52 (26.9%) of P-bx had > 15 portal tracts. There were 6 (10.2%) EUS-bx vs. 1 (1.7%) P-bx related complication leading to a phone call (p = 0.061).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-bx can safely performed and accurately predict liver fibrosis stage as the standard P-bx without being influenced by procedure-related factors.