Search

Background and Aims: Several reports have validated EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling (EUS-LB) as safe and effective. Nineteen-gauge EUS aspiration (FNA) or core (fine-needle biopsy [FNB]) needles are used, but different needle techniques can yield variable outcomes. Some data show that 1 pass (single liver puncture) with 1 actuation (1 to-and-fro needle movement) may be enough to obtain a satisfactory specimen. However, there has not been a head-to-head comparison of single versus multiple needle actuations for EUS-LB., Methods: This was a prospective randomized trial of EUS-LB in 40 patients comparing tissue yields and adequacy using 1 pass, 1 actuation (1:1) versus 1 pass 3 actuations (1:3) of an FNB needle. The primary outcome was number of complete portal triads (CPTs). Secondary outcomes were length of the longest piece, aggregate specimen length, number of cores >9 mm, and adverse events (AEs). Computerized randomization determined selection (either 1:1 or 1:3 with fanning technique). Sample lengths were measured before pathologic processing., Results: Both groups had similar demographics and indications for EUS-LB. All biopsy samples were adequate for pathologic interpretation. Compared with 1:1, biopsy sampling with 1:3 yielded more CPTs (mean [standard deviation], 17.25 [6.2] vs 24.5 [9.88]; P < .008) and longer aggregate specimen length (6.89 cm [1.86] vs 12.85 cm [4.02]; P < .001). AEs were not statistically different between the techniques. No severe AEs were noted., Conclusions: EUS-LB using the 1:3 technique produced longer liver cores with more CPTs than the 1:1 technique with an equivalent safety profile. Two needle passes are more likely to provide tissue adequacy according to the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000040101.)., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a safe and effective method for accomplishing parenchymal liver biopsy. The aim of this study was to compare a 19 G aspiration needle (FNA) with a 19 G Franseen-tip core biopsy needle (FNB) for EUS-LB., Methods: This was a prospective, parallel group, randomized trial comparing the tissue yields and adequacy of a 19 G FNA needle vs. a 19 G FNB needle for EUS-LB. The primary outcome was length of the longest piece of liver core specimen. Secondary outcomes were aggregate specimen length, number of complete portal triads (CPTs), and adverse events. One transgastric pass and one transduodenal pass were performed with the same needle in each patient. Specimen lengths were measured before and after histological processing., Results: 40 patients referred for EUS-LB were randomized to either the FNA group (n = 20) or the FNB group (n = 20). Both groups had similar patient characteristics. FNB biopsies yielded longer mean (standard deviation) specimen lengths (pre-processing mean 2.09 cm [0.41] vs. mean 1.47 cm [0.46], and post-processing mean 1.78 cm [0.66] vs. mean 1.05 cm [0.42]; both P  < 0.001), a longer aggregate specimen length (pre-processing mean 15.78 cm [5.19] vs. 10.89 cm [4.38]; P  = 0.003), and more CPTs (mean 42.6 25 vs 18.1 [9.3]; P  < 0.001) compared with the FNA needle. There were no severe adverse events or difference in adverse event rate between the two needles. Post-biopsy pain was noted in 37.5 %., Conclusion: EUS-LB using the FNB needle delivered longer liver biopsy specimens with more CPTs than the regular (non-core) needle., Competing Interests: Dr. Diehl is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus America, Medtronic, and Cook (all manufacturers of needles used for endoscopic ultrasound)., (Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019.)

Amyloidosis is a group of disorders that can manifest in virtually any organ system in the body and is thought to be secondary to misfolding of extracellular proteins with subsequent deposition in tissues. The precursor protein that is produced in excess defines the specific amyloid type. This requires histopathological confirmation using Congo red dye with its characteristic demonstration of green birefringence under cross-polarized light. Gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations are common and the degree of organ involvement dictates the symptoms that a patient will experience. The small intestine usually has the most amyloid deposition within the GI tract. Patients generally have nonspecific findings such as abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, and dysphagia that can often delay the proper diagnosis. Liver involvement is seen in a majority of patients, although symptoms typically are not appreciated unless there is significant hepatic amyloid deposition. Pancreatic involvement is usually from local amyloid deposition that can lead to type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, patients may undergo either endoscopic or radiological evaluation; however, these findings are usually nonspecific. Management of GI amyloidosis primarily aims to treat the underlying amyloid type with supportive measures to alleviate specific GI symptoms. Liver transplant is found to have positive outcomes, especially in patients with specific variants of hereditary amyloidosis.

Sarcoidosis is typically characterized as a non-caseating granulomatous disease that has the ability to affect multiple different organ systems. Although extra-thoracic sarcoidosis can occur in the presence and also without lung involvement, isolated extra-pulmonary disease is rare. The liver is the third most commonly affected organ system after the lungs and lymph nodes. When discussing hepatic sarcoidosis it is important to keep in mind that many patients in this population may not present as one would typically expect since most of the patients are asymptomatic or have mild presentations. Therefore, the diagnosis can be difficult at times since no single laboratory or imaging study can definitively diagnose this systemic disease. In the rare case of some patients where there is difficulty in discerning between different pathologies, the use of image-guided tissue biopsy may be necessary to establish a diagnosis. At the current time, there are no clear guidelines for the management of hepatic sarcoidosis and are mostly dependent on a patient's clinical status at time of presentation. The current body of research in regard to treatment suggests steroids to be the mainstay of therapy. However, there is a role for additional immunosuppressive therapy in cases where the initial treatment is refractory to steroids. In this manuscript, we discussed the pathogenesis of liver sarcoidosis and context of its presentation. In addition, the differential diagnosis and imaging evaluation in this population is discussed. Finally, treatment options are reviewed in setting of previous studies for liver sarcoidosis.

There is no standardized protocol for bowel preparation prior to video capsule endoscopy, although one is strongly recommended. The purpose of our study was to see if there was a statistical significance between small bowel mucosal visualization rates for those who received bowel preparation and those who did not. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who had a video capsule endoscopy from August 2014 to January 2016 at a tertiary care center. All patients fasted prior to the procedure. Bowel preparation when used consisted of polyethylene glycol. A long fast consisted of 12 or more hours. The grading system used to assess the small bowel was adapted from a previously validated system from Esaki et al Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test or Welch's 2-sample t-test and statistical significance was present if the p value was ≤0.05. 76 patients were carried forward for analysis. Small bowel mucosal visualization rates were similar between those who received bowel preparation and those who did not (92.5% vs 88.9%, p=0.44). Small bowel mucosal visualization rates were significantly better in those patients who had a long fast compared with those who had a short fast (97.7% vs 81.3%, p=0.019). Our study demonstrates that the addition of bowel preparation prior to video capsule endoscopy does not significantly improve small bowel mucosal visualization rates and, in addition, there is a statistically significant relationship between increased fasting time and improved small bowel mucosal visualization. A prolonged fast without bowel preparation might be satisfactory for an adequate small bowel visualization but further randomized, prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings., (Copyright © 2016 American Federation for Medical Research.)