Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis

Author:

Bhandari Megha1,Samanta Jayanta2ORCID,Spadaccini Marco3ORCID,Fugazza Alessandro3ORCID,Crinò Stefano Francesco4,Gkolfakis Paraskevas5ORCID,Triantafyllou Konstantinos6ORCID,Dhar Jahnvi2,Maida Marcello7ORCID,Pugliese Nicola3ORCID,Hassan Cesare3,Repici Alessandro3,Aghemo Alessio3,Serviddio Gaetano8ORCID,Facciorusso Antonio8ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Hepatology Department, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge CB4 1GN, UK

2. Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India

3. Endoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy

4. Diagnostic and Interventional Endoscopy of Pancreas, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy

5. Department of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Nea Ionia “Konstantopoulio-Patision”, 142 33 Athens, Greece

6. Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, “Attikon” University General Hospital, 124 62 Athens, Greece

7. Faculty of Medicine, “Kore” University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy

8. Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Via L Pinto 1, 71122 Foggia, Italy

Abstract

Background: The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) remains uncertain. Methods: Our data consist of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB to PC-LB, found through a literature search via PubMed/Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, whereas secondary outcomes were longest and total lengths of tissue specimens, diagnostic accuracy, and number of complete portal tracts (CPTs). Results: Sample adequacy did not significantly differ between EUS-LB and PC-LB (risk ratio [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58–2.38; p = 0.65), with very low evidence quality and inadequate sample size as per trial sequential analysis (TSA). The two techniques were equivalent with respect to diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1; CI: 0.95–1.05; p = 0.88), mean number of complete portal tracts (mean difference: 2.29, −4.08 to 8.66; p = 0.48), and total specimen length (mean difference: −0.51, −20.92 to 19.9; p = 0.96). The mean maximum specimen length was significantly longer in the PC-LB group (mean difference: −3.11, −5.51 to −0.71; p = 0.01), and TSA showed that the required information size was reached. Conclusion: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance although PC-LB provides longer non-fragmented specimens.

Publisher

MDPI AG

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3