Background: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Research design and methods: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p=0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p=0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p=0.93). Conclusion: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.
Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Facciorusso, Antonio
;Muscatiello, Nicola;
2021-01-01
Abstract
Background: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. Research design and methods: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p=0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p=0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p=0.93). Conclusion: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
