Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: a meta-analysis
Keyu Zeng, Zhenpeng Jiang, Jie Yang, Kefei Chen, Qiang Lu
Abstract
Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an evolving technique. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the value of EUS-LB for parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Besides, we aimed to assess the influences of needle-related factors on the performance of EUS-LB. Additionally, we aimed to assess the influence of various criteria on specimen adequacy.Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases up to 10 October 2021. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimens evaluated by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The secondary outcome was adverse events. Subgroup analyses were based on needle type, needle size, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle type. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on specimen adequacy based on two definition criteria.Results In total, 33 studies were included. Pooled rates of diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimen by ROSE, adverse events were 95%, 84%, 93%, 3%. Subgroup analyses showed that Acquire needles generated higher diagnostic yield than SharkCore needles (99% vs. 88%, p = .047). Additionally, FNB needles demonstrated a higher rate of adverse events than FNA needles (6% vs. 1%, p = .028). Sensitivity analysis on specimen adequacy based on various criteria demonstrated that the specimen adequacy rate defined by the AASLD criterion was lower than that of the commonly-used criterion (37% vs. 84%, p = .001).Conclusion EUS-LB is effective and safe for liver biopsy. Acquire needles provide better specimens than SharkCore needles. FNB needles may increase the risk of adverse events compared with FNA needles. The AASLD criterion is harder to achieve than the commonly-used criterion.