Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2024; 12(02): E291-E296
DOI: 10.1055/a-2226-1337
Original article

Comparison of diagnostic outcomes, safety, and cost of Franseen-tip 19G versus 22G needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsies

Ankit Dalal 
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Nagesh Kamat 
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Gaurav Patil
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Amol Vadgaonkar
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Sanil Parekh
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Sehajad Vora
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
,
Amit Maydeo 
1   Institute of Gastrosciences, Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India (Ringgold ID: RIN81727)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Favorable outcomes were noted with refinement in newer endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) needle tips. Still, the overall usefulness and benefit are yet to be well explored.

Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of patients with EUS-LB (Franseen-tip 19G versus 22G FNB needle) over 2 years. EUS-LB was obtained in a one-pass, two-actuation, modified wet suction technique. Diagnostic yield, fragmentation rate, aggregate specimen length (AL), number of complete portal tracts (CPT), length of longest intact core (LIC), adverse events (AEs) (early), and cost of the procedure (1USD = 82 INR) were compared.

Results Fifty-four patients (33 [61.1%], female) successfully underwent EUS-LB with a median age of 46 years (interquartile range [IQR] 34–54); the majority 32 (59.2%) underwent 19G biopsies. There was a significantly increased median (IQR) AL in the 19G compared with 22G (20 mm [19–21] vs. 15 [14–15], P < 0.001), respectively. Similarly, significantly lengthier median LIC and CPT were seen, respectively. A nonsignificant diagnostic yield was noted (100% vs. 90.9%, P = 0.082), respectively. The fragmentation rate was higher in 22G FNB needles (36.4% [95% CI 16–56] vs. 12.5% [95% CI 1–24], respectively; P = 0.038). Seven patients (12.9%) had mild AEs with no difference between groups. The average procedure cost with 19G was INR 63000 (768$), and with 22G needle was INR 54500 (664$).

Conclusions The Franseen-tip 19G outperforms 22G with a significantly lower fragmentation rate, longer AL, LIC, and a higher number of CPT with a marginal increase in the procedure cost, without any difference in diagnostic yield and safety.

Keywords

Intervention EUS - Endoscopic ultrasonography - Fine-needle aspiration/biopsy


Publication History

Received: 14 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 01 December 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
11 December 2023

Article published online:
28 February 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Johnson KD, Laoveeravat P, Yee EU. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy: Recent evidence. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 12: 83-97
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Madhok IK, Parsa N, Nieto JM. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy. Clin Liver Dis 2022; 26: 127-138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Diehl DL, Johal AS, Khara HS. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a multicenter experience. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E210-E215
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Mohan BP, Shakhatreh M, Garg R. et al. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sarwar R, Pierce N, Koppe S. Obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: current perspectives. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes 2018; 11: 533-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Diehl DL. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2019; 29: 173-186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Ang TL, Li JW, Kwek ABE. et al. The difference in histological yield between 19G EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy needles. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 255-260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Ramai D, Pannu V, Facciorusso A. et al. Advances in endoscopic ultrasound (eus)-guided liver biopsy. Diagnostics (Basel) 2023; 13: 784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Nieto J, Khaleel H, Challita Y. et al. EUS-guided fine-needle core liver biopsy sampling using a novel 19-gauge needle with modified 1-pass, 1 actuation wet suction technique. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 469-475
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS. et al. A prospective pilot comparison of wet and dry heparinized suction for EUS-guided liver biopsy (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 919-925
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Diehl DL. Top tips regarding EUS-guided liver biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 368-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD. et al. Liver biopsy. Hepatology 2009; 49: 1017-1044
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Aggarwal SN, Magdaleno T, Klocksieben F. et al. A prospective, head-to-head comparison of 2 EUS-guided liver biopsy needles in vivo. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1133-1138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Shah RM, Schmidt J, John E. et al. Superior specimen and diagnostic accuracy with endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsies using 19-gauge versus 22-gauge core needles. Clin Endosc 2021; 54: 739-744
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mok SRS, Diehl DL, Johal AS. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy in chronic liver disease: a randomized comarison of 19-G FNA and 22-G FNB needles. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E62-E71
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Patel HK, Saxena R, Rush N. et al. A comparative study of 22G versus 19G needles for EUS-guided biopsies for parenchymal liver disease: Are thinner needles better?. Dig Dis Sci 2021; 66: 238-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Baran B, Kale S, Patil P. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided parenchymal liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5546-5557
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Stavropoulos SN, Im GY, Jlayer Z. et al. High yield of same-session EUS-guided liver biopsy by 19-gauge FNA needle in patients undergoing EUS to exclude biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 310-318
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Shah ND, Sasatomi E, Baron TH. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided parenchymal liver biopsy: single center experience of a new dedicated core needle. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 784-786
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Hashimoto R, Lee DP, Samarasena JB. et al. Comparison of two specialized histology needles for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy: a pilot study. Dig Dis Sci 2021; 66: 1700-1706
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Ching-Companioni RA, Diehl DL, Johal AS. et al. 19 G aspiration needle versus 19 G core biopsy needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1059-1065
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. et al. Liver biopsy. N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 495-500
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Njei B. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided, percutaneous, and transjugular liver biopsy: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endosc 2020; 53: 583-593
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rangwani S, Ardeshna DR, Mumtaz K. et al. Update on endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. World J Gastroenterol 2022; 28: 3586-3594
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Eves M, Harvey A, Lysek M. et al. EUS guided liver workup versus percutaneous guided in a community hospital. Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders 2020; 3: 28-34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Mony S, Shah I, Vyas N. et al. Su1372 EUS guided liver biopsy is more cost-effective than percutaneous liver biopsy in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 326-327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar