Download PDF
Endoscopy 2025; 57(01): 41-48
DOI: 10.1055/a-2368-4608
Systematic review

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo 
1   Diagnostic Imaging and Specialized Diagnosis Unit, University Hospital of Federal University of Sao Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil
2   Gastroenterology, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN28133)
,
Gilmara Coelho Meine
3   Internal Medicine Department, FEEVALE University, Novo Hamburgo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN125099)
,
Angélica Luciana Nau 
4   Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hospital Jaragua, Jaragua do Sul, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN650553)
,
Eduardo Cerchi Barbosa 
5   Internal Medicine, Evangelical University of Goias, Anápolis, Brazil
,
Stefano Baraldo 
6   Endoscopy, Barretos Cancer Hospital, Barretos, Brazil
,
Luciano Lenz 
7   Endoscopy Unit, University of Sao Paulo Institute of Cancer of Sao Paulo State, São Paulo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN215027)
8   Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Fleury Medicina e Saude, São Paulo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN504998)
9   Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, São Paulo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN37896)
,
Fauze Maluf-Filho 
7   Endoscopy Unit, University of Sao Paulo Institute of Cancer of Sao Paulo State, São Paulo, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN215027)
10   CNPq, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brasilia, Brazil (Ringgold ID: RIN164358)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Author commentary on Paula Arruda do Espirito Santo et al.Endoscopy 2025; 57(01): v2-v2
DOI: 10.1055/a-2368-2271

Abstract

Background Percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) has long been the usual method for acquisition of liver tissue. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained popularity as an alternative modality. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB versus PC-LB.

Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB with PC-LB published until October 20, 2023. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy. Secondary outcomes were: the number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), longest sample length (LSL), total sample length (TSL), post-procedure pain scores, and adverse events (AEs), including overall AEs and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms. We compared binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95%CIs.

Results Four RCTs (258 patients) were included. The EUS-LB group presented lower post-procedure pain scores (SMD −0.58, 95%CI −0.95 to −0.22) than the PC-LB group. Both groups performed similarly in terms of diagnostic adequacy (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.04), number of CPTs (MD 2.57, 95%CI −4.09 to 9.22), LSL (MD −2.91 mm, 95%CI −5.86 to 0.03), TSL (MD 4.16 mm, 95%CI −10.12 to 18.45), overall AEs (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.46), and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms (RR 1.65, 95%CI 0.21 to 13.02).

Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-LB is as safe and effective as PC-LB and is associated with lower post-procedure pain scores.

Registration on PROSPERO: CRD42023469469.

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 13 December 2023

Accepted after revision: 07 June 2024

Article published online:
28 August 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Bravo AA, Sheth SG, Chopra S. Liver biopsy. NEJM 2001; 344: 495-500
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Regev A, Berho M, Jeffers LJ. et al. Sampling error and intraobserver variation in liver biopsy in patients with chronic HCV infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2614-2618
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Neuberger J, Patel J, Caldwell H. et al. Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology. Gut 2020; 69: 1382-1403
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Thomaides-Brears HB, Alkhouri N, Allende D. et al. Incidence of complications from percutaneous biopsy in chronic liver disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2022; 67: 3366-3394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Lesmana CRA, Paramitha MS, Gani RA. The role of interventional endoscopic ultrasound in liver diseases: what have we learnt?. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 2021: 9948979
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rudnick SR, Conway JD, Russo MW. Current state of endohepatology: Diagnosis and treatment of portal hypertension and its complications with endoscopic ultrasound. World J Hepatol 2021; 13: 887-895
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dewitt J, McGreevy K, Cummings O. et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided Tru-cut biopsy of benign liver disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 535-542
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 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.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Facciorusso A, Crinò SF, Ramai D. et al. Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 16: 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Chandan S, Deliwala S, Khan SR. et al. EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Endosc Ultrasound 2023; 12: 171-180
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane. 2022 Accessed July 08, 2024 at: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Luo D, Wan X, Liu J. et al. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27: 1785-1805
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J. et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ali AH, Nallapeta NS, Yousaf MN. et al. EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Endosc Ultrasound 2023; 12: 334-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Samanta J, Chavan R, Gupta P. et al. EUS-guided liver biopsy scores over radiology guided percutaneous liver biopsy: a multicenter randomised controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: AB485-AB486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bang JY, Ward TJ, Guirguis S. et al. Radiology-guided percutaneous approach is superior to EUS for performing liver biopsies. Gut 2021; 70: 2224-2226
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019; 366: l4898
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Brozek J. et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations for diagnostic tests and strategies. BMJ 2008; 336: 1106-1110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Lariño-Noia J, Fernández-Castroagudín J, de la Iglesia-García D. et al. Quality of tissue samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118: 1821-1828
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N. et al. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006; 333: 597-600
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Téllez-Ávila FI, García-Saenz-de-Sicilia M. Endohepatology: current status and perspectives. Ann Hepatol 2022; 27: 100730
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Pineda JJ, Diehl DL, Miao CL. et al. EUS-guided liver biopsy provides diagnostic samples comparable with those via the percutaneous or transjugular route. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 360-365
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Sundaram S, Shah B, Jagtap N. et al. Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for diffuse liver diseases and its predictors – a multicentric retrospective analysis. Clin Exp Hepatol 2023; 9: 243-250
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Ramai D, Pannu V, Facciorusso A. et al. Advances in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy. Diagn Basel Switz 2023; 13: 784
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Diehl DL. Top tips regarding EUS-guided liver biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 368-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Choi AY, Chang KJ, Samarasena JB. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided porto-systemic pressure gradient measurement correlates with histological hepatic fibrosis. Dig Dis Sci 2022; 67: 5685-5692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 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
  • 29 DeWitt JM, Arain M, Chang KJ. et al. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound: current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 24-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Diehl DL, Confer B, Adler DG. et al. EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: Do we have a winner?. Endosc Ultrasound 2022; 11: 339-341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Shuja A, Alkhasawneh A, Fialho A. et al. Comparison of EUS-guided versus percutaneous and transjugular approaches for the performance of liver biopsies. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 826-830
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Rockey DC, Caldwell SH, Goodman ZD. et al. Liver biopsy. Hepatology 2009; 49: 1017-1044
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar