Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Liver biopsy: When, how, by whom, and where?

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Liver biopsy remains an important diagnostic tool in the management of liver disease. Complications, though infrequent, are potentially disastrous. Risks and discomfort can be minimized with good technique, although prospective data to prove the superiority of one method over another are often lacking. Image direction is preferred in all cases, as is a transjugular approach when bleeding risks are judged to be high. Bleeding is essentially a random event. Outpatient liver biopsy is appropriate in almost every instance if immediate hospitalization facilities are available. It should be more widely practiced. Liver biopsies should only be done if, after thoughtful assessment, benefits are thought to exceed risks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Gilmore IT, Burroughs A, Murray-Lyon IM, et al.: Indications, methods, and outcomes of percutaneous liver biopsy in England and Wales: an audit by the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Royal College of Physicians of London. Gut 1995, 36:437–441.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grant A, Neuberger J: Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice. Gut 1999, 45(suppl IV):IVI-IVII. After a 1991 audit of 189 health districts in the UK showed significant differences in liver biopsy practice, these authors developed guidelines based on four categories of evidence. The strongest evidence is that from meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, and the fourth category is evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions of respected authorities. Most aspects of the procedure are reviewed, and the guidelines presented are comprehensive and reasonable.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hoffer FA: Liver biopsy methods for pediatric oncology patients. Pediatr Radiol 2000, 30:481–488. This paper gives up-to-date information on biopsies in children, with particular emphasis on transjugular biopsies, reporting a very favorable experience.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tobkes AI, Nord HJ: Liver biopsy: review of methodology and complications. Dig Dis 1995, 13:267–274.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Leeuwen DJ, Wilson L, Crowe DR: Liver biopsy in the mid-1990s: questions and answers. Semin Liver Dis 1995, 15:340–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wood BJ, Murphy BL, Mueller PR: Percutaneous liver biopsy: review and update. Semin Intervent Radiol 1997, 14:227–240. An excellent review with major emphasis on technical aspects of the procedure from the point of view of the radiologist using guided techniques, both ultrasound and CT.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Desmet V, Fevery J: Liver biopsy. Balliere’s Clin Gastroenterol 1995, 9:811–829.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Spies JB, Berlin L: Complications of percutaneous needle biopsy. Am J Roentgenol 1998, 171:13–17.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. McGill DB, Rakela J, Zinsmeister AR, et al.: A 21-year experience with major hemorrhage after percutaneous liver biopsy. Gastroenterology 1990, 99:1396–1400.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Perrault J, McGill DB, Ott BJ, et al.: Liver biopsy: complications in 1000 inpatients and outpatients. Gastroenterology 1978, 74:103–106.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kliewer MA, Sheafor DH, Paulson EK, et al.: Percutaneous liver biopsy: a cost-benefit analysis comparing sonographic and CT guidance. Am J Roentgenol 1999, 173:1199–1202.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Takamori R, Wong LL, Dang C, et al.: Needle-tract implantation from hepatocellular cancer: is needle biopsy of the liver always necessary? Liver Transplant 2000, 6:67–72. The authors retrospectively reviewed 91 cases of hepatocellular cancer (HCC). Fifty-nine of these patients had undergone percutaneous needle biopsies, and of this group, three patients, or 5.1%, developed needle tract implantation of tumor. After reviewing the available literature the authors suggest that percutaneous biopsy should be reserved for those lesions where no definitive surgical intervention is planned and pathologic confirmation is necessary for nonsurgical therapy. It is hoped that this approach will maximize the opportunity for cure of HCC.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Louha M, Nicolet J, Zylberberg H, et al.: Liver resection and needle liver biopsy cause hematogenous dissemination of liver cells. Hepatology 1999, 29:879–882.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Cadranel J-F, Rufat P, Degos F: Practices of liver biopsy in France: results of a prospective nationwide survey. Hepatology 2000, 32:477–481. Report from a recent nationwide prospective study in France to assess the practice of liver biopsy in university and referral hospitals. Over 2000 biopsies were reviewed with respect to indications and procedural characteristics. Tumor and post-transplant biopsies were excluded. Only 27% were from outpatients. Hepatitis C was the most frequent indication, and the authors recommend further use of ultrasound guidance and day-case procedures.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Farrell RJ, Smiddy PF, Pilkington RM, et al.: Guided versus blind liver biopsy for chronic hepatitis C: clinical benefits and costs. J Hepatol 1999, 30:580–587.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nutt AK, Hassan HA, Lindsey J, et al.: Liver biopsy in the evaluation of patients with chronic hepatitis C who have repeatedly normal or near-normal serum alanine aminotransferase levels. Am J Med 2000, 109:62–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. EASL: European Association for the Study of Liver (EASL) international consensus conference on hepatitis C. J Hepatol 1999, 30:956–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dries V, von Both I, Muller J, et al.: Detection of hepatitis C virus in paraffin-embedded liver biopsies of patients negative for viral RNA in serum. Hepatology 1999, 29:223–229.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sorbi D, McGill DB, Thistle JL, et al.: An assessment of the role of liver biopsies in asymptomatic patients with chronic liver test abnormalities. Am J Gastroenterol 2000, 95:3206–3210.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Daniel S, Ben-Menachem T, Vasudevan G, et al.: Prospective evaluation of unexplained chronic liver transaminase abnormalities in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94:3010–3014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brenard R, Horsmans Y, Rahier J, et al.: Transjugular liver biopsy: an experience based on 500 procedures. Acta Gastro-Enterol Belg 1997, LX:138–41.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Choo SW, Do YS, Park KB, et al.: Transjugular liver biopsy: modified Ross transseptal needle versus quick-core biopsy needle. Abdom Imaging 2000, 25:483–485.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. De Hoyos A, Loredo ML, Martinez-Rios MA, et al.: Transjugular liver biopsy in 52 patients with an automated Trucut-type needle. Dig Dis Sci 1999, 44:177–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Papatheodoridis GV, Patch D, Watkinson A, et al.: Transjugular liver biopsy in the 1990s: a 2-year audit. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999, 13:603–608. This report documents a recent study reviewing 157 transjugular biopsies performed between 1995 and 1997 in 145 patients who had prothrombin times greater than 5 seconds over control and/or platelet counts less than 50,000 and/or gross ascites. Only two major complications were reported (1.3%), and biopsy samples were adequate for histologic diagnosis in 90%.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sada PN, Ramakrishna B, Thomas CP, et al.: Transjugular liver biopsy: a comparison of aspiration and trucut techniques. Liver 1997, 17:257–259.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Tutor-Gonzalez A, Garcia-Valtuille R, Cerezal L, et al.: Transjugular biopsy of the liver with an automated device. Acta Radiolol 1998, 39:686–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Janes CH, Lindor KD: Outcome of patients admitted with complications after outpatient liver biopsies. Ann Int Med 1993, 118:96–98.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Castera L, Negre I, Samii K, et al.: Pain experienced during percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology 1999, 30:1529–1530.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Lindor KD, Rodes J, Jorgensen RA, et al.: The role of ultrasonography and automatic needle biopsy in outpatient percutaneous liver biopsy. Hepatology 1996, 23:1079–1083.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmad M, Riley TRI: Can one predict when ultrasound will be useful with percutaneous liver biopsy? Am J Gastroenterol 2000, in press.

  31. Riley TRI. How often does ultrasound marking change the liver biopsy site? Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94:3320–3322. The author presents an interesting answer to the question addressed in the title. Ultrasound was thought to change management in 15% of instances. Also, ultrasound changed the position one would otherwise choose by percussion because of intervening structure identified in the liver path.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Polakow J, Ladny JR, Dzieciol J, et al.: Ultrasound guided percutaneous fine-needle biopsy of the liver: efficacy of color doppler sonography. Hepatogastroenterology 1998, 45:1829–1830.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Younossi ZM, Teran JC, Ganiats TG, et al.: Ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for parenchymal liver disease: an economic analysis. Dig Dis Sci 1998, 43:46–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Pasha T, Gabriel S, Therneau T, et al.: Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided liver biopsy. Hepatology 1998, 27:1220–1226. The authors use decision analysis to assess the relative cost effectiveness of performing ultrasound-guided liver biopsies. This cost-effectiveness ratio is at least comparable to that of other healthcare interventions when the frequency of major complications after percutaneous liver biopsies is less than 2% and ultrasonography reduces more than 60% of these procedures.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Fox VL, Cohen MB, Whitington PF, et al.: Outpatient liver biopsy in children: a medical position statement of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1996, 23:213–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Shah S, Mayberry JF, Wicks ACB, et al.: Liver biopsy under ultrasound control: implications for training in the Calman era. Gut 1999, 45:628–629.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Garcia-Tsao G, Boyer JL: Outpatient liver biopsy: how safe is it? Ann Intern Med 1993, 118:150–153.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Knauer CM: Percutaneous biopsy of the liver as a procedure for outpatients. Gastroenterology 1978, 74:101–102.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith BC, Desmond PV: Outpatient liver biopsy using ultrasound guidance and the Biopty gun is safe and cost effective. Aust NZ J Med 1995, 25:209–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Douds AC, Joseph AEA, Finlayson C, et al.: Is day case liver biopsy underutilised? Gut 1995, 37:574–575.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Jacobs WH, Goldberg SB: Statement on out-patient percutaneous liver biopsy. Dig Dis Sci 1989, 34:322–323.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic, 200 First Steet, SW, 55905, Rochester, MN, USA

    Douglas B. McGill MD

Authors
  1. Douglas B. McGill MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McGill, D.B. Liver biopsy: When, how, by whom, and where?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 3, 19–23 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-001-0036-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-001-0036-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation