Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Concurrent Eus-Guided Liver Biopsy and Eus- Guided Portal Pressure Gradient Measurement in a Single Procedure

Cai, Wenju; Dyrved, Niels-Jorgen; Acharya, Priyanka; Lee, David P.; Kedia, Prashant

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.1320

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most AEs (93.7%) were considered mild as per the ASGE lexicon and were managed conservatively. The sole incidence of bleeding manifested as a hepatic hematoma and was managed conservatively [ 27 ]. In order to reduce the risk of bleeding, certain areas can be targeted for introduction of the needle, such as the trunk of the portal vein, where if bleeding occurs it can more easily be noticed and treated [ 23 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dhindsa

2024

aog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) is a new modality where the portal pressure is measured by directly introducing a needle into the hepatic vein and portal vein. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-PPG. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent studies. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PPG. Technical success was defined as successful introduction of the needle into the desired vessel, while clinical success was defined as the correlation of the stage of fibrosis on the liver biopsy to EUS-PPG, or concordance of HVPG and EUS-PPG. The secondary outcomes were pooled rates for total and individual adverse events related to EUS-PPG. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Eight cohort studies with a total of 178 patients were included in our analysis. The calculated pooled rates of technical success and clinical success were 94.6% (95%CI 88.5-97.6%; P=<0.001; I 2 =0) and 85.4% (95%CI 51.5-97.0%; P=0.042; I 2 =70), respectively. The rate of total adverse events was 10.9% (95%CI 6.5-17.7%; P=<0.001; I 2 =4), and 93.7% of them were mild, as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Abdominal pain (11%) was the most common adverse event, followed by bleeding (3.6%). There were no cases of perforation or death reported in our study. Conclusions EUS-PPG is a safe and effective modality for diagnosing portal hypertension. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dhindsa

2024

aog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Concurrent Eus-Guided Liver Biopsy and Eus- Guided Portal Pressure Gradient Measurement in a Single Procedure

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About