Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy Using 22-Gauge vs. 19-Gauge Needles with a Novel Hydrostatic Sampling Technique.

IF 6.7 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Patrick T Magahis, Erika Hissong, Mark Hanscom, David L Carr-Locke, Kartik Sampath, Reem Z Sharaiha, SriHari Mahadev
{"title":"Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy Using 22-Gauge vs. 19-Gauge Needles with a Novel Hydrostatic Sampling Technique.","authors":"Patrick T Magahis, Erika Hissong, Mark Hanscom, David L Carr-Locke, Kartik Sampath, Reem Z Sharaiha, SriHari Mahadev","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2025.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Prior data have shown specimen quality suffers when 22-gauge needles are used in place of 19G needles during endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB). Emerging data suggest a novel hydrostatic sampling technique (HST) may offer improved performance over wet suction (WS). We hypothesized EUS-LB using a 22G fine-needle biopsy needle with the HST would attain similar tissue adequacy to 19G needles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively examined a prospectively collected database of EUS-LBs between 1/2021-9/2024. All biopsies were performed with a 22G or 19G needle using one pass with three actuations. All specimens were re-reviewed by an expert pathologist blinded to needle gauge and technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>126 EUS-LBs (30 via 22G HST, 44 via 19G HST, and 52 via 19G WS) were performed in 120 patients. Compared to 22G HST, tissue adequacy (length ≥2cm and ≥11 complete portal tracts [CPTs]) was identical in 19G HST (93% vs. 93%, p=0.98) and lower in 19G WS (93% vs. 85%, p=0.25). Median aggregate specimen length was 5.10 cm, 5.63 cm, and 5.30 cm and CPT count was 24, 26, and 21 in 22G HST, 19G HST, and 19G WS, respectively. 22G HST had significantly less blood contamination compared to both 19G HST and 19G WS with no significant differences in specimen fragmentation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When using the HST, EUS-LB with 22G needles meets adequacy standards at high rates similar to 19G needles. The HST may allow for the use of 22G needles in patients at high risk for adverse events or with challenging anatomies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.05.002","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Prior data have shown specimen quality suffers when 22-gauge needles are used in place of 19G needles during endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB). Emerging data suggest a novel hydrostatic sampling technique (HST) may offer improved performance over wet suction (WS). We hypothesized EUS-LB using a 22G fine-needle biopsy needle with the HST would attain similar tissue adequacy to 19G needles.

Methods: We retrospectively examined a prospectively collected database of EUS-LBs between 1/2021-9/2024. All biopsies were performed with a 22G or 19G needle using one pass with three actuations. All specimens were re-reviewed by an expert pathologist blinded to needle gauge and technique.

Results: 126 EUS-LBs (30 via 22G HST, 44 via 19G HST, and 52 via 19G WS) were performed in 120 patients. Compared to 22G HST, tissue adequacy (length ≥2cm and ≥11 complete portal tracts [CPTs]) was identical in 19G HST (93% vs. 93%, p=0.98) and lower in 19G WS (93% vs. 85%, p=0.25). Median aggregate specimen length was 5.10 cm, 5.63 cm, and 5.30 cm and CPT count was 24, 26, and 21 in 22G HST, 19G HST, and 19G WS, respectively. 22G HST had significantly less blood contamination compared to both 19G HST and 19G WS with no significant differences in specimen fragmentation.

Conclusions: When using the HST, EUS-LB with 22G needles meets adequacy standards at high rates similar to 19G needles. The HST may allow for the use of 22G needles in patients at high risk for adverse events or with challenging anatomies.

超声内镜下肝活检22号针与19号针结合新型静液取样技术的结果
背景和目的:先前的数据表明,在超声内镜引导下的肝活检(EUS-LB)中,使用22号针代替19G针会影响标本质量。新出现的数据表明,一种新的流体静压取样技术(HST)可能比湿吸(WS)提供更好的性能。我们假设使用带有HST的22G细针活检针的EUS-LB可以获得与19G针相似的组织充分性。方法:回顾性分析前瞻性收集的eu - lbs数据库,时间为2021年1月至2024年9月。所有活检均采用22G或19G针,一次通过三次驱动。所有标本由不知道针距和技术的病理学专家重新检查。结果:120例患者共行126例EUS-LBs(30例经22G HST, 44例经19G HST, 52例经19G WS)。与22G HST相比,19G HST的组织充分性(长度≥2cm和≥11个完整门静脉束[CPTs])相同(93%对93%,p=0.98),而19G WS的组织充分性较低(93%对85%,p=0.25)。在22G HST、19G HST和19G WS中,总标本长度的中位数分别为5.10 cm、5.63 cm和5.30 cm, CPT计数分别为24、26和21。与19G HST和19G WS相比,22G HST的血液污染明显减少,标本碎裂无显著差异。结论:使用HST时,22G针的EUS-LB符合充分性标准的比例与19G针相似。HST可能允许在不良事件高风险患者或具有挑战性解剖结构的患者中使用22G针。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
Gastrointestinal endoscopy 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
7.80%
发文量
1441
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信