The specimen quality of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) for benign liver disease evaluation depends on the technique and type of needle used. Using a 19-gauge (19 g) fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle with 3 actuations and wet suction (WS) or slow stylet pull is the current preferred practice. We conducted a randomized prospective multicenter trial to compare wet suction (WS) to slow stylet pull (SP) technique to compare histologic yields, length of procedure, and adverse events (AE).

This prospective randomized trial (NCT03245580) included patients undergoing EUS-LB for parenchymal biopsy at 6 centers in the United States in 2020-2021. A 19 g Franseen tip EUS needle was used for all procedures. For WS, the needle was flushed with saline, and a 20 ml suction syringe with 3 to 5 ml of fluid was used. For SP, a slow pullback of stylet was used. Pathologist was blinded for tissue interpretation.

One hundred fifty-three patients across 6 tertiary centers were included, with 75 patients in the WS arm and 78 patients in the SP arm. Histologic outcomes were superior in WS compared with SP [aggregate specimen length (46.5 vs. 34.5 mm, P<0.001), length of longest fragment (14 vs. 11 mm, P<0.001), and number of complete portal tracts (16 vs. 11.5, P<0.001)]. The overall ability to make a histological diagnosis was higher in WS (99% vs. 92%). Procedure length and AE did not differ between groups.

The use of WS compared with SP for EUS-LB resulted in superior specimen yields. Total procedure time and adverse events were similar for both techniques.

The practice of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is becoming more common due to its proven safety and effectiveness. For accurate diagnosis, it is vital to secure ample tissue specimens. However, gauging the volume of tissue specimens accurately poses a challenge with existing methods. Additionally, determining the most suitable fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle requires further study. Our aim was to contrast the tissue surface areas obtained using Franseen and Fork-tip needles and to identify factors affecting tissue volume.

This retrospective study analyzed liver tissue samples collected through EUS-LB using 19-gauge Franseen and Fork-tip needles from patients suffering from diffuse liver diseases, conducted in our hospital from April 2019 to April 2022. We primarily focused on measuring hepatic tissue surface area and portal tract count, alongside examining patient-related factors that could influence tissue surface area.

The study involved 20 cases for each type of needle. The comparison revealed no significant disparities in the total liver tissue surface area (22.0 mm2 vs. 22.6 mm2, P = 0.45) or in the portal tract counts (30 vs. 20, P = 0.16). No adverse incidents were noted in either group. Both univariate and multivariate analyses highlighted that fibrosis and metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) presence were significant determinants of the total hepatic tissue area (P = 0.04, P < 0.05; and P = 0.02, P = 0.03, respectively).

The capabilities of both needles in acquiring liver tissue were comparably effective. The volume of tissue was affected by the severity of fibrosis and the occurrence of MASLD.

With the rapid development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), diagnostic and therapeutic platforms have emerged that are applicable in hepatology. New tools such as EUS-guided portal pressure measurement (in combination with EUS-guided liver biopsy) or EUS-guided variceal obliteration using coils and glue present attractive procedures that can potentially overcome the limitations of current gold standards. In this review article, we provide an overview of these new 'endo-hepatology' techniques and highlight their current role in the treatment of liver diseases.

Portal hypertension (PH) is a complication of advanced liver diseases, including cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, often leading to unfavorable outcomes. Endo-hepatology, particularly endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has revolutionized the assessment of PH. Notably, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) enables measurement of portal and hepatic venous pressures, offering diagnostic precision for both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic forms of PH, including porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD). EUS-based assessment of PH in advanced liver disease can refine diagnostic workup and prognostication, supporting therapeutic decisions. Additionally, EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) achieves high-quality histological samples with fewer complications compared to percutaneous techniques, enabling thorough evaluation of chronic liver diseases and vascular abnormalities. EUS-shear wave elastography (EUS-SWE) further refines stiffness measurements where standard imaging fails. Moreover, EUS plays a major role in controlling variceal hemorrhage, a severe PH complication. EUS-guided coil and cyanoacrylate injection for gastric varices demonstrate a great efficacy, often surpassing conventional endoscopy. Similarly, EUS-based identification and treatment of perforator vessels feeding esophageal varices reduce rebleeding risks, particularly in challenging patients. The combination of these state-of-the-art interventions supports a "one-stop strategy", integrating variceal screening, biopsy, and portal pressure measurement within a single procedure. Despite these advancements, refinements in sedation protocols, patient selection, and cost-effectiveness data are necessary. While noninvasive tools remain central in guidelines, EUS-based methods continue to expand their role, especially in complex cases. This review summarizes the applications and impact of EUS in evaluating PH, emphasizing its importance in contemporary hepatology and its potential as a pivotal diagnostic modality in cirrhosis complicated by PH.

Percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) has long been the usual method for acquisition of liver tissue. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained popularity as an alternative modality. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB versus PC-LB.

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB with PC-LB published until October 20, 2023. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy. Secondary outcomes were: the number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), longest sample length (LSL), total sample length (TSL), post-procedure pain scores, and adverse events (AEs), including overall AEs and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms. We compared binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95%CIs.

Four RCTs (258 patients) were included. The EUS-LB group presented lower post-procedure pain scores (SMD -0.58, 95%CI -0.95 to -0.22) than the PC-LB group. Both groups performed similarly in terms of diagnostic adequacy (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.04), number of CPTs (MD 2.57, 95%CI -4.09 to 9.22), LSL (MD -2.91 mm, 95%CI -5.86 to 0.03), TSL (MD 4.16 mm, 95%CI -10.12 to 18.45), overall AEs (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.46), and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms (RR 1.65, 95%CI 0.21 to 13.02).

This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-LB is as safe and effective as PC-LB and is associated with lower post-procedure pain scores.Registration on PROSPERO: CRD42023469469.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is a growing public health concern worldwide. Liver biopsy is the gold standard for diagnosing and staging MASLD, but it is invasive and carries associated risks. In recent years, there has been significant progress in developing noninvasive techniques for evaluation. This review article discusses briefly current available noninvasive assessments and the various liver biopsy techniques available for MASLD, including invasive techniques such as transjugular and transcutaneous needle biopsy, intraoperative/laparoscopic biopsy, and the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy. In addition to discussing the various biopsy techniques, we review the current state of knowledge on the histopathologic evaluation of MASLD, including the various scoring systems used to grade and stage the disease. We also explore current and alternative modalities for histopathologic evaluation, such as whole slide imaging and the utility of immunohistochemistry. Overall, this review article provides a comprehensive overview of the progress in liver biopsy techniques for MASLD and compares invasive and noninvasive modalities. However, beyond clinical trials, the practical application of liver biopsy may be limited, as ongoing advancements in noninvasive fibrosis assessments are expected to more effectively identify candidates for MASLD treatment in real-world settings.

In patients with liver tumors, the histopathology examination can assist in diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and therapeutic management strategy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition using fine needle aspiration (FNA) or more newly fine needle biopsy (FNB) is a well-developed technique in order to evaluate and differentiate the liver masses. The goal of the EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is to provide an accurate sample for a histopathology examination. Therefore, malignant tumors such as hepatocarcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma and liver metastasis or benign tumors such as liver adenoma, focal hyperplastic nodular tumors and cystic lesions can be accurately diagnosed using EUS-guided tissue acquisition. EUS-FNB using 19 or 22 Ga needle provide longer samples and a higher diagnostic accuracy in patients with liver masses when compared with EUS-FNA. Few data are available on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB when compared with percutaneously, ultrasound, computer tomography or transjugulary-guided liver biopsies. This review will discuss the EUS-guided tissue acquisition options in patients with liver tumors and its efficacy and safety in providing accurate samples. The results of the last studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy with other conventional techniques are presented. The EUS-guided tissue acquisition using FNB can be a suitable technique in suspected liver lesions in order to provide an accurate histopathology diagnosis, especially for those who require endoscopy.

Chronic liver disease has emerged as a significant global concern, with primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) representing a critical consequence of this disease. However, early detection of HCC remains challenging in clinical practice. Recently, there has been a growing interest in applying endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a diagnostic tool for gastrointestinal diseases. Nevertheless, using EUS to diagnose and treat HCC is uncommon. In this review we described the diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in primary HCC and evaluated its clinical significance. The diagnostic procedures primarily involve EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy or aspiration, assessment of metastatic lymph nodes and portal vein thrombosis, portal pressure monitoring, and portal vein blood collection. Treatment mainly includes EUS-guided tumor ablation, brachytherapy, injectable chemotherapy, and managing variceal hemorrhage related to portal hypertension.

Recent advances in the field of hepatology include new and effective treatments for viral hepatitis. Further effort is now being directed to other disease entities, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, with an increased need for assessment of liver function and histology. In fact, with the evolving nomenclature of fat-associated liver disease and the emergence of the term "metabolic-associated fatty liver disease" (MAFLD), new diagnostic challenges have emerged as patients with histologic absence of steatosis can still be classified under the umbrella of MAFLD. Currently, there is a growing number of endoscopic procedures that are pertinent to patients with liver disease. Indeed, interventional radiologists mostly perform interventional procedures such as percutaneous and intravascular procedures, whereas endoscopists focus on screening for and treatment of esophageal and gastric varices. EUS has proven to be of value in many areas within the realm of hepatology, including liver biopsy, assessment of liver fibrosis, measurement of portal pressure, managing variceal bleeding, and EUS-guided paracentesis. In this review article, we will address the endoscopic applications that are used to manage patients with chronic liver disease.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has long been a reliable backbone in the diagnosis and management of hepatobilary disorders and their complications. However, with evolving non-invasive testing, personalised medicine has reframed the utility and necessity of endoscopic screening. Conversely, the growing interest and use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and advanced endoscopy within gastrointestinal units has also opened novel diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for patients with various hepatobiliary diseases. The integration of "advanced endoscopy" within the practice of hepatology is nowadays referred to as "endo-hepatology". In essence, endo-hepatology consists of two pillars: one focusing primarily on disorders of the liver parenchyma, vascular disorders, and portal hypertension, which is mainly captured via EUS, while the other targets the hepatobiliary tract via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and advanced imaging. Applications under the umbrella of endo-hepatology include, amongst others, EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, coil and glue embolisation of gastric varices as well as cholangioscopy. As such endo-hepatology could become an attractive concept wherein advanced endoscopy might reinforce the medical management of patients with hepatobiliary disorders and their complications after initial basic work-up. In this review, we discuss current trends and future developments within endo-hepatology and the remaining hurdles to overcome.

There is dramatically increased incidence of several liver diseases worldwide; thus, an unmet need to diagnose and stage these pathological entities heralds the wide application of liver biopsy (LB) techniques. The ways of LB are versatile, including percutaneous LB, transjugular LB, and more recently an approach of minimal invasiveness, that is, EUS-guided LB (EUS-LB). In this review article, we come to the conclusion that EUS-LB may serve as a feasible, reliable, and safe alternative to percutaneous LB and transjugular LB in terms of improved diagnostic yield, excellent sampling performance, and controlled adverse events among patients with focal, infiltrative, and parenchymal liver diseases. Furthermore, extensive efforts have been made to optimize and refine several technical pillars within EUS-LB modality such as the selection of needle size/type, priming manner of biopsy needle, and choice of pass/actuation technique, all of which aim at obtaining better specimen quantity and quality. Another advantageous aspect and unique property pertinent to EUS-guided modality indicate that multiple screening, surveillance, and intervention procedures can be combined into one single endoscopic session. Accordingly, some pilot studies have clarified the clinical usefulness by integrating EUS-LB with simultaneous measurement of portal pressure gradient or examination of liver stiffness. However, more studies, in particular, randomized controlled trials or real-world evidence, are practically warranted to elucidate the validity and safety of EUS-LB as a regular/routine part of managing liver diseases.

Liver biopsy (LB) remains essential for the diagnosis and staging of parenchymal liver diseases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided LB (EUS-LB) has emerged as an attractive alternative to percutaneous and transjugular routes. We aimed at comparing the adequacy of samples obtained by EUS-LB with percutaneous LB.

A single-center, randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed. Patients undergoing LB were randomly assigned to EUS-LB or percutaneous LB groups. EUS-LB was performed with a 19-gauge Franseen core needle through a transduodenal and transgastric route. Percutaneous LB was performed with a 16-gauge Tru-Cut needle. The main outcome was the percentage of adequate samples obtained. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of accurate histologic diagnosis, number of complete portal tracts (CPT), total and longest specimen length (TSL and LSL), sample fragmentation, adverse events, and patients' satisfaction. An adequate specimen was defined as TSL ≥20 mm and including ≥11 CPT.

Ninety patients were randomized (44 to EUS-LB and 46 to percutaneous LB) and included in the analysis. The percentage of adequate tissue samples was 32.6% and 70.4% for percutaneous LB and EUS-LB, respectively ( P < 0.001). A final histologic diagnosis was provided in all cases but one. TSL was longer after EUS-LB (23.5 vs 17.5 mm, P = 0.01), whereas the number of CPT was similar in both groups. Sample fragmentation occurred more often after EUS-LB ( P < 0.001). No differences in adverse events were found. Satisfaction reported with both procedures was high.

EUS-LB is safe and accurate and may be considered an alternative to percutaneous LB for the evaluation of parenchymal liver diseases.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is a novel liver biopsy technique. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB in comparison with percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB).

This retrospective study evaluated the safety and efficacy of EUS-LB using a 19-gauge fine needle biopsy (FNB) needle compared with PLB using a spring-loaded 16-gauge needle in patients with diffuse liver disease at our hospital from April 2017 to December 2020. The primary outcomes included the total hepatic tissue surface area and the total number of portal tracts. Secondary outcomes included the success and adverse event rates.

Twenty patients each underwent EUS-LB and PLB. There was no statistical difference in the sum of liver tissue surface area (22 mm² vs 22.6 mm² , P = .910) and the total number of portal tracts (29 vs 25, P = .916). The success rate was 95% (19/20) for EUS-LB and 100% (20/20) for PLB (P = 1). There were two adverse events in the PLB group but none in the EUS-LB group (P = .487).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy using FNB has an optimal tissue yield and success rate and is safe compared to PLB. Thus, EUS-LB may be a new alternative to PLB.

Video 1FNA of a mass identified in the caudate lobe of the liver with US gastrovideoscope.

EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7-99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6-98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.

EUS has become an increasingly used diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the armamentarium of endoscopists. With ever-expanding indications, EUS is being used in patients with liver disease, for both diagnosis and therapy. EUS is playing an important role in providing additional important information to that provided by cross-sectional imaging modalities such as computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Domains of therapy that were largely restricted to interventional radiologists have become accessible to endosonologists. From liver biopsy and sampling of liver lesions to ablative therapy for liver lesions and vascular interventions for varices, there is increased use of EUS in patients with liver disease. In this review, we discuss the various diagnostic and therapeutic applications of EUS in patients with various liver diseases.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) from focal liver lesions are indicated in selected cases, but there has been no previous comparison of needle types of the same size. The aim of our study was to compare the histologic diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of cores obtained with EUS-FNB needles in contrast to those obtained with FNA needles in focal liver lesions. This prospective one-center study included patients with left lobe hepatic focal lesions with contraindications for percutaneous liver biopsy or need for EUS for concomitant lesions. Each patient had one pass of 22G EUS-FNB (Franseen) needle and one pass of 22G EUS-FNA in a crossover manner, without macroscopic on-site evaluation. Each sample was analyzed separately for histologic adequacy and diagnosis. The final diagnosis was based on histology results or on imaging follow-up in the case of negative biopsies. The EUS-FNB samples (n = 30) were found to be more adequate for histologic analysis, with more cellularity and longer tissue aggregates than the EUS-FNA samples (n = 30). The accuracy of EUS-FNB was 100%, whereas that of EUS-FNA was 86.7% (p = 0.039). No post-procedure complications were noted. The 22G EUS-FNB needle proved superior to 22G EUS-FNA in terms of tissue acquisition diagnostic accuracy and histologic adequacy in focal liver lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a minimally-invasive alternative to the traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. Po-tentially, EUS-LB combines the advantages of percutaneous and transjugular liver biopsy in addressing focused sampling in addition to measuring portal pressure. Additionally, EUS-LB facilitates access to both the lobes of the liver which is not considered with the traditional percutaneous liver biopsy. Multiple studies have compared EUS-LB with conventional liver biopsy and reported comparable diagnostic yield, increased acquisition of complete portal tracts, and longer specimen length as compared to the traditional approaches. EUS-LB is associated with lesser post-procedural pain and shorter recovery time, while providing lower risk of complications when compared to traditional liver biopsy. Innovations in needle types, needle sizes and suction techniques have aimed at further optimizing the EUS-LB technique. This review article updates current literature with focus on the variations in the technique and equipment used for EUS-LB, and compares EUS-LB with traditional methods of liver biopsy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) is an evolving technique. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the value of EUS-LB for parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Besides, we aimed to assess the influences of needle-related factors on the performance of EUS-LB. Additionally, we aimed to assess the influence of various criteria on specimen adequacy.

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library databases up to 10 October 2021. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimens evaluated by rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The secondary outcome was adverse events. Subgroup analyses were based on needle type, needle size, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle type. A sensitivity analysis was conducted on specimen adequacy based on two definition criteria.

In total, 33 studies were included. Pooled rates of diagnostic yield, specimen adequacy, qualified specimen by ROSE, adverse events were 95%, 84%, 93%, 3%. Subgroup analyses showed that Acquire needles generated higher diagnostic yield than SharkCore needles (99% vs. 88%, p = .047). Additionally, FNB needles demonstrated a higher rate of adverse events than FNA needles (6% vs. 1%, p = .028). Sensitivity analysis on specimen adequacy based on various criteria demonstrated that the specimen adequacy rate defined by the AASLD criterion was lower than that of the commonly-used criterion (37% vs. 84%, p = .001).

EUS-LB is effective and safe for liver biopsy. Acquire needles provide better specimens than SharkCore needles. FNB needles may increase the risk of adverse events compared with FNA needles. The AASLD criterion is harder to achieve than the commonly-used criterion.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to percutaneous and trans-jugular approaches for hepatic tissue acquisition. It has shown superior diagnostic yield for the targeted approach of focal lesions, less sampling variability, improved patient comfort, and safety profile. These advantages have contributed to the increased use of EUS-LB as a technique for obtaining liver tissue. In this review, we provide an update on the recent evidence of EUS-LB for the evaluation of liver disease.

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.

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).

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).

EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

The etiology of most cases of liver diseases in pregnancy can be diagnosed with a thorough history, physical examination, laboratory values, serology, and noninvasive imaging. However, atypical clinical and laboratory presentations of liver diseases/chemistries require a liver biopsy to render an accurate diagnosis in cases where the biopsy results affect the timing of delivery or impact choice of medical therapy. According to the American College of Gastroenterology, liver biopsy can be effectively and safely conducted in pregnant women. Conventional routes of performing a liver biopsy include the percutaneous, transjugular route, and surgical methods. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy is a recent technique that has not yet gained widespread adoption but can potentially serve as an alternative route for obtaining the liver sample. Adverse events associated with liver biopsy include abdominal pain and hemorrhage. Maternal and fetal outcomes are limited to increased risk of preterm birth and small for gestational age neonate. However, very few studies have formally evaluated the safety of liver biopsy in pregnant women. In this review, we present two successful cases of liver biopsy performed during pregnancy and summarize the most recent evidence regarding the safety and outcomes of the procedure in pregnancy to assist clinicians in their decision to perform a liver biopsy during pregnancy or postpone it until after delivery.

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases has been expanding. The imaging or intervention for various liver diseases has primarily been the domain of radiologists. With the advances in EUS, the domain of endosonologists is rapidly expanding in the field of hepatology. The ability to combine endoscopy and sonography in one hybrid device is a unique property of EUS, together with the ability to bring its probe/transducer near the liver, the area of interest. Its excellent spatial resolution and ability to provide real-time images coupled with several enhancement techniques, such as contrast-enhanced (CE) EUS, have facilitated the growth of EUS. The concept of "Endo-hepatology" encompasses the wide range of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that are now gradually becoming feasible for managing various liver diseases. Diagnostic advancements can enable a wide array of techniques from elastography and liver biopsy for liver parenchymal diseases, to CE-EUS for focal liver lesions to portal pressure measurements for managing various liver conditions. Similarly, therapeutic advancements range from EUS-guided eradication of varices, drainage of bilomas and abscesses to various EUS-guided modalities of liver tumor management. We provide a comprehensive review of all the different diagnostic and therapeutic EUS modalities available for the management of various liver diseases. A synopsis of all the technical details involving each procedure and the available data has been tabulated, and the future trends in this area have been highlighted.

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

As the burden of liver disease in the general populace steadily increases, so does the need for both advanced diagnostic and treatment options. Endoscopic ultrasound is a reliable diagnostic and therapeutic method that has an established role, foremost in pancreatobiliary pathology. This paper aims to summarize the growing role of endoscopic ultrasound in hepatology based on the search of the current literature. A number of applications of endoscopic ultrasound are reviewed, including both noninvasive methods and tissue acquisition in focal and diffuse liver disease, portal hypertension measurement, detection and management of gastric and esophageal varices, treatment of focal liver lesions and staging of pancreatobiliary malignancies, treatment of cystic and solid liver lesions, as well as liver abscess drainage. Both hepatologists and endoscopists should be aware of the evolving role of endoscopic ultrasound in liver disease. The inherent invasive nature of endoscopic examination limits its use to a targeted population identified using noninvasive methods. Endoscopic ultrasound is one the most versatile methods in gastroenterology, allowing immediate access with detection, sampling, and treatment of digestive tract pathology. Further expansion of its use in hepatology is immanent.

Chronic liver disease (CLD) is still a major problem, where the disease progression will lead to liver cirrhosis (LC) or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Portal hypertension (PH) management and loco-regional therapy for HCC have become the cornerstones in advanced liver disease management. Recently, there are studies looking at the potential role of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in liver diseases. EUS may be useful in vascular changes of the digestive wall evaluation, performing dynamic assessment of hemodynamic changes, predicting variceal bleeding and rebleeding risk, and assessing the pharmacological effects. In PH management, EUS-guided vascular therapy-which revolves around glue injection, endovascular coil placement/embolization, and combination of both-has shown promising results. As a diagnostic modality for liver cancer, the implementation of EUS in liver diseases is currently not only limited to liver biopsy (EUS-LB) but also in shear-wave elastography (SWE) and portal pressure gradient measurement, as well as portal vein sampling. The application of EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) and tumor injection can also overcome the limitations shown by both modalities without EUS. Nevertheless, establishing EUS as a firm diagnostic and therapeutic modality is still challenging since the performance of interventional EUS requires high expertise and adequate facilities.

There is scarce and conflicting evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and percutaneous (PC)-guided liver biopsy (LB). The aim of this study was to compare the two approaches in a series of patients with parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Fifty-four patients undergoing EUS-LB in two high-volume centers between 2017 and 2021 were compared to 62 patients who underwent PC-LB. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy rate. The secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, total sample length (TSL), number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), procedural duration, and adverse events. Variables were compared using the Chi-square and Mann-Whitney test. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range 48-69) in the EUS-LB group and 54 years (45-67) in the PC-LB group with most patients being male. Indication for LB was due to parenchymal disease in 50% of patients, whereas the other patients underwent LB due to focal liver lesions. Diagnostic adequacy was 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in the EUS-LB group (p = 0.74), whereas diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% in the EUS-LB group and 100% in the PC-LB group (p = 0.82). Median TSL was significantly greater in the PC-LB group (27.4 mm, IQR 21-29) when compared to the EUS-LB group (18.5 mm, 10.1-22.4; p = 0.02). The number of complete portal tracts was 21 (11-24) in the PC-LB group and 18.5 (10-23.2) in EUS-LB group (p = 0.09). EUS-LB was a significantly longer procedure (7 min, 5-11 versus 1 min, 1-3 of PC-LB; p < 0.001) and no evidence of adverse events was observed in any of the study groups. These results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis performed according to an indication for LB (parenchymal disease versus focal lesion). Although PC-LB yielded specimens with greater TSL, diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were similar between the two procedures.

Data on comparative efficacy of various available endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) needles are limited. We sought to compare the performance of a novel Franseen-tip 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) device to that of 19G needle platforms for liver parenchyma.

Consecutive patients referred for EUS and suspected to have hepatic parenchymal disease underwent EUS-LB using different EUS needles and were included in this retrospective study. Two blinded expert liver pathologists independently reviewed and reported on: total number of tissue fragments, length of longest fragment, number of complete and incomplete portal tracts (CPT and IPT), and specimen adequacy.

A 22G Franseen-tip needle (A) was used in 30 patients; 19G Tru-Cut needle (B) in 50 patients; 19G reverse beveled non-Tru-Cut needle (C) in 27 patients; and a 19G flexible non-Tru-Cut needle (D) in 28 patients. In the order of needles, A, B, C and D,  > 10 tissue fragments were obtained in 100%, 6%, 82%, and 96% samples, the mean number of CPTs was 6.9; 3.0; 7.3; and 16.9, length of longest fragment was 3.8, 4. 7, 3.9, and 8.4 mm, and specimen adequacy was 66.7%, 46%, 82.1%, and 81.5%, respectively. A positive correlation was obtained between number of CPTs and length of longest fragment in samples accrued by 19G needles.

EUS-LB specimens using 22G Franseen-tip needle appear highly fragmented, leading to inferior specimen adequacy compared to 19G non-Tru-Cut needles. We also report on using length of longest fragment as an additional criterion for specimen adequacy as it positively correlates with number of CPTs standard.

Intervention for liver disease has predominantly been performed through the percutaneous approach. However, as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) applications have expanded, there have emerged various EUS-guided interventions for liver disease, a space we call "Endo-Hepatology". EUS-guided liver biopsy can be considered the "forerunner" of Endo-Hepatology and has become a clinical option for patients requiring histologic diagnosis and staging of their liver disease. EUS also enables direct access to the portal vein. Subsequently, many procedures are being explored, such as angiography, measurement of the portosystemic pressure gradient, portal vein sampling to detect cancer cell or DNA, and EUS-guided transhepatic intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation. Since the transducer is close to the liver, especially the left and caudate lobes, EUS can be used as a rescue when the percutaneous approach is not favorable and EUS-guided treatments of liver tumor, cyst and abscess have been reported. This review summarizes the available studies of EUS-guided intervention in the liver.

Background and study aims  Assessment of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-elastography of the liver and spleen may identify patients with portal hypertension secondary to chronic liver disease. We aimed to evaluate use of EUS-elastography of the liver and spleen in identification of portal hypertension in patients with chronic liver disease. Patients and methods  This was a single-center, diagnostic cohort study. Consecutive patients with liver cirrhosis and portal hypertension underwent EUS-elastography of the liver and spleen. Patients without a history of liver disease were enrolled as controls. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield of liver and spleen stiffness measurement via EUS-elastography in prediction of portal hypertension secondary to chronic liver cirrhosis. Cutoff values were defined through Youden's index. Overall accuracy was calculated for parameters with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve ≥ 80 %. Results  Among the 61 patients included, 32 had cirrhosis of the liver. Liver and spleen stiffness was measured by the strain ratio and strain histogram, with sensitivity/(1 - specificity) AUROC values ≥ 80 %. For identification of patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension, the liver strain ratio (SR) had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 84.3 %, 82.8 %, 84.4 %, and 82.8 %, respectively; the liver strain histogram (SH) had values of 87.5 %, 69.0 %, 75.7 %, and 83.3 %, respectively. EUS elastography of the spleen via the SR reached a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 87.5 %, 69.0 %, 75.7 %, and 83.3 %, respectively, whereas the values of SH were 56.3 %, 89.7 %, 85.7 %, and 65.0 %, respectively. Conclusion  Endoscopic ultrasonographic elastography of the liver and spleen is useful for diagnosis of portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis.

Liver diseases are amongst the most common diseases worldwide and manifest as a parenchymatic and/or biliary injury due to several causes as well as focal liver lesions, ranging from benign to malignant ones. The diagnosis of liver diseases is based mainly on biochemical and advanced imaging studies and, when required, on liver biopsy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), which combines endoscopy and ultrasonography, is one of the main examination techniques used in gastroenterology as it is applied to evaluate abnormalities in the lumen of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract and to define pancreatic and hepato-biliary features, often in chronic patients. Given its high spatial resolution and its proximity to the liver, EUS is gaining popularity in the diagnostic work up of liver diseases. This is a comprehensive overview of the current literature on the diagnostic indications for EUS use in patients with liver diseases. We performed a MEDLINE\PubMed and Embase search, and all articles that were relevant, after reviewing abstracts, were assessed and the full text was analyzed to extract data regarding technical success, diagnostic yield, bioptic characteristics, and complications rate. EUS-guided imaging and biopsy techniques in liver diseases have shown consistent favorable promising results among the reports through the literature, with an excellent diagnostic yield and safety profile, especially in the context of focal lesions and portal hypertension. The application of EUS in the diagnosis of liver diseases is a promising technique and should be considered as a first-line therapeutic option in selected cases.

Both fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) are widely used to obtain liver biopsy specimens, particularly from mass lesions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of FNA versus CNB in terms of appropriate use, diagnostic yield, complications, and whether or not specimens should be handled by cytopathologists, surgical pathologists, or both remain subjects of controversy. This review addresses the issues of sample adequacy, appropriate use of each technique and complications, and challenges regarding the diagnosis of both hepatic tumors and non-neoplastic liver disease.

Liver biopsy (LB) is an essential tool in diagnosing, evaluating and managing various diseases of the liver. As such, histopathological results are critical as they establish or aid in diagnosis, provide information on prognosis, and guide the appropriate selection of medical therapy for patients. Indications for LB include evaluation of persistent elevation of liver chemistries of unclear etiology, diagnosis of chronic liver diseases such as Wilson's disease, autoimmune hepatitis, small duct primary sclerosing cholangitis, work up of fever of unknown origin, amyloidosis and more. Traditionally, methods of acquiring liver tissue have included percutaneous LB (PCLB), transjugular LB (TJLB) or biopsy taken surgically via laparotomy or laparoscopy. However, traditional methods of LB may be inferior to newer methods. Additionally, PCLB and TJLB carry higher risks of adverse events and complications. More recently, endoscopic ultrasound guided LB (EUS-LB) has evolved as an alternative method of tissue sampling that has proven to be safe and effective, with limited adverse events. Compared to PC and TJ routes, EUS-LB may also have a greater diagnostic yield of tissue, be superior for a targeted approach of focal lesions, provide higher quality images and allow for greater patient comfort. These advantages have contributed to the increased use of EUS-LB as a technique for obtaining liver tissue. Herein, we provide a review of the recent evidence of EUS-LB for liver disease.