Advertisement

Simultaneous EUS-guided portosystemic pressure measurement and liver biopsy sampling correlate with clinically meaningful outcomes

Published:December 06, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.11.037

      Background and Aims

      The measurement of the portosystemic pressure gradient (PSG) in patients with advanced liver disease is helpful to assess the severity of portal hypertension (PH) and predict adverse clinical outcomes. EUS-guided PSG (EUS-PSG) measurement is a novel tool to assess PSG in all patients with advanced liver disease. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and technical success of simultaneous EUS-PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling using a single-center experience.

      Methods

      Patients with suspected liver disease or cirrhosis were enrolled prospectively from 2020 to 2021. EUS-PSG was measured by calculating the difference between the mean portal pressure and the mean hepatic vein pressure. PH was defined as PSG >5 mm Hg and clinically significant PH as PSG ≥10 mm Hg. The primary outcomes were procedural technical success rate and correlation of EUS-PSG with fibrosis stage obtained from concurrent EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling and the correlation of EUS-PSG with patients' imaging, clinical, and laboratory findings. The secondary outcome was occurrence of procedural adverse events (AEs).

      Results

      Twenty-four patients were included in the study. PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling were successful in 23 patients (technical success rate of 96%) and 24 patients (100% success), respectively. Analysis revealed a significant association between both PSG and liver stiffness measured on transient elastography (P = .011) and fibrosis-4 score (P = .026). No significant correlation was found between the fibrosis stage on histology and measured PSG (P = .559). One mild AE of abdominal pain was noted. Additionally, EUS-PSG was predictive of clinically evident PH.

      Conclusions

      Simultaneous EUS-PSG measurement and EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling were both feasible and safe and correlated with clinically evident PH and noninvasive markers of fibrosis.

      Abbreviations:

      AE (adverse events), CSPH (clinically significant portal hypertension), FIB-4 (fibrosis-4), HVPG (hepatic venous pressure gradient), INR (international normalized ratio), NAFLD (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease), NAS (NAFLD activity score), NFS (NAFLD fibrosis score), PH (portal hypertension), PSG (portosystemic pressure gradient)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Berzigotti A.
        • Seijo S.
        • Reverter E.
        • et al.
        Assessing portal hypertension in liver diseases.
        Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 7: 141-155
        • Jalan R.
        • Redhead D.N.
        • Forrest E.H.
        • et al.
        Relationship between directly measured portal pressure gradient and variceal hemorrhage.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 1995; 90: 1994-1996
        • Bosch J.
        • Abraldes J.G.
        • Berzigotti A.
        • et al.
        The clinical use of HVPG measurements in chronic liver disease.
        Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 6: 573-582
        • Patch D.
        • Armonis A.
        • Sabin C.
        • et al.
        Single portal pressure measurement predicts survival in cirrhotic patients with recent bleeding.
        Gut. 1999; 44: 264-269
        • Xu G.
        • Li F.
        • Mao Y.
        Portal pressure monitoring-state-of-the-art and future perspective.
        Ann Transl Med. 2019; 7: 583
        • Zhang W.
        • Peng C.
        • Zhang S.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 93: 565-572
        • Huang J.Y.
        • Samarasena J.B.
        • Tsujino T.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with a simple novel device: a human pilot study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85: 996-1001
        • Acosta R.D.
        • Abraham N.S.
        • Chandrasekhara V.
        • et al.
        The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83: 3-16
        • Sharma M.
        • Somani P.
        • Rameshbabu C.S.
        Linear endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of hepatic veins.
        World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 10: 283-293
        • Sterling R.K.
        • Lissen E.
        • Clumeck N.
        • et al.
        Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection.
        Hepatology. 2006; 43: 1317-1325
        • Angulo P.
        • Hui J.M.
        • Marchesini G.
        • et al.
        The NAFLD fibrosis score: a noninvasive system that identifies liver fibrosis in patients with NAFLD.
        Hepatology. 2007; 45: 846-854
        • Kleiner D.E.
        • Brunt E.M.
        • Van Natta M.
        • et al.
        Design and validation of a histological scoring system for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
        Hepatology. 2005; 41: 1313-1321
        • Wai C.
        • Greenson J.K.
        • Fontana R.
        • et al.
        A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.
        Hepatology. 2003; 38: 518-526
        • Cotton P.B.
        • Eisen G.M.
        • Aabakken L.
        • et al.
        A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71: 446-454
        • Schulman A.R.
        • Thompson C.C.
        • Ryou M.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided direct portal pressure measurement using a digital pressure wire with real-time remote display: a survival study.
        J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2017; 27: 1051-1054
        • Fujii-Lau L.L.
        • Leise M.D.
        • Kamath P.S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal-systemic pressure gradient measurement.
        Endoscopy. 2014; 46: E654-E656
        • Zhang W.
        • Peng C.
        • Zhang S.
        • et al.
        EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement in patients with acute or subacute portal hypertension.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 93: 565-572
        • Tey T.T.
        • Gogna A.
        • Irani F.G.
        • et al.
        Application of a standardised protocol for hepatic venous pressure gradient measurement improves quality of readings and facilitates reduction of variceal bleeding in cirrhotics.
        Singapore Med J. 2016; 57: 132-137
        • D'Amico G.
        • Garcia-Pagan J.C.
        • Luca A.
        • et al.
        Hepatic vein pressure gradient reduction and prevention of variceal bleeding in cirrhosis: a systematic review.
        Gastroenterology. 2006; 131: 1611-1624
        • O'Leary J.G.
        • Greenberg C.S.
        • Patton H.M.
        • et al.
        AGA clinical practice update: coagulation in cirrhosis.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 157: 34-43

      Linked Article

      • Sedation during EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement: the elephant in the room
        Gastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 96Issue 4
        • Preview
          In the April issue of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Hajifathalian et al1 reported their experience with the simultaneous acquisition of EUS-guided portosystemic pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) and liver biopsy. They showed that EUS-PPG is feasible and safe, with a technical success rate of 96% and the occurrence of 1 mild adverse event (4%, 1/24), respectively. This well-conducted study further supports the role of EUS in the evaluation of portal hypertension, and it challenges the hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) obtained by the transjugular approach.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF