期刊文献+

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: From guidelines to clinical practice 被引量:5

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: From guidelines to clinical practice
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM: To study the practical applicability of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines in suspected cases of choledocholithiasis.METHODS: This was a retrospective single center study, covering a 4-year period, from January 2010 to December 2013. All patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) for suspected choledocholithiasis were included. Based on the presence or absence of predictors of choledocholithiasis(clinical ascending cholangitis, common bile duct(CBD) stones on ultrasonography(US), total bilirubin > 4 mg/d L, dilated CBD on US, total bilirubin 1.8-4 mg/d L, abnormal liver function test, age > 55 years and gallstone pancreatitis), patients were stratified in low, intermediate or high risk for choledocholithiasis. For each predictor and risk group we used the χ2 to evaluate the statistical associations with the presence of choledocolithiasis at ERCP. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 268 ERCPs were performed for suspected choledocholithiasis. Except for gallstone pancreatitis(P = 0.063), all other predictors of cho-ledocholitiasis(clinical ascending cholangitis, P = 0.001; CBD stones on US, P ≤ 0.001; total bilirubin > 4 mg/dL, P = 0.035; total bilirubin 1.8-4 mg/dL, P = 0.001; dilated CBD on US, P ≤ 0.001; abnormal liver function test, P = 0.012; age > 55 years, P = 0.002) showed a statistically significant association with the presence of choledocholithiasis at ERCP. Approximately four fifths of patients in the high risk group(79.8%, 154/193 patients) had confirmed choledocholithiasis on ERCP, vs 34.2%(25/73 patients) and 0(0/2 patients) in the intermediate and low risk groups, respectively. The definition of "high risk group" had a sensitivity of 86%, positive predictive value 79.8% and specificity 56.2% for the presence of choledocholithiasis at ERCP. CONCLUSION: The guidelines should be considered to optimize patients' selection for ERCP. For high risk patients specificity is still low, meaning that some patients perform ERCP unnecessarily. AIM:To study the practical applicability of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines in suspected cases of choledocholithiasis.METHODS: This was a retrospective single center study, covering a 4-year period, from January 2010 to December 2013. All patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) for suspected choledocholithiasis were included. Based on the presence or absence of predictors of choledocholithiasis(clinical ascending cholangitis, common bile duct(CBD) stones on ultrasonography(US), total bilirubin > 4 mg/d L, dilated CBD on US, total bilirubin 1.8-4 mg/d L, abnormal liver function test, age > 55 years and gallstone pancreatitis), patients were stratified in low, intermediate or high risk for choledocholithiasis. For each predictor and risk group we used the χ2 to evaluate the statistical associations with the presence of choledocolithiasis at ERCP. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 268 ERCPs were performed for suspected choledocholithiasis. Except for gallstone pancreatitis(P = 0.063), all other predictors of cho-ledocholitiasis(clinical ascending cholangitis, P = 0.001; CBD stones on US, P ≤ 0.001; total bilirubin > 4 mg/dL, P = 0.035; total bilirubin 1.8-4 mg/dL, P = 0.001; dilated CBD on US, P ≤ 0.001; abnormal liver function test, P = 0.012; age > 55 years, P = 0.002) showed a statistically significant association with the presence of choledocholithiasis at ERCP. Approximately four fifths of patients in the high risk group(79.8%, 154/193 patients) had confirmed choledocholithiasis on ERCP, vs 34.2%(25/73 patients) and 0(0/2 patients) in the intermediate and low risk groups, respectively. The definition of 'high risk group' had a sensitivity of 86%, positive predictive value 79.8% and specificity 56.2% for the presence of choledocholithiasis at ERCP. CONCLUSION: The guidelines should be considered to optimize patients' selection for ERCP. For high risk patients specificity is still low, meaning that some patients perform ERCP unnecessarily.
出处 《World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy》 CAS 2015年第2期128-134,共7页 世界胃肠内镜杂志(英文版)(电子版)
关键词 CHOLEDOCHOLITHIASIS Endoscopic retrograde CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY CHOLANGITIS COMMON bileduct stones DILATED COMMON bile duct Choledocholithiasis Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Cholangitis Common bile duct stones Dilated common bile duct
  • 相关文献

参考文献30

  • 1Kaltenthaler E, Vergel YB, Chilcott J, Thomas S, BlakeboroughT, Walters SJ, Bouchier H. A systematic review and economicevaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographycompared with diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Health Technol Assess 2004; 8: iii, 1-89 [PMID:14982656].
  • 2Ko CW, Lee SP. Epidemiology and natural history of common bileduct stones and prediction of disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56: S165-S169 [PMID: 12447261].
  • 3Tazuma S. Gallstone disease: Epidemiology, pathogenesis, andclassification of biliary stones (common bile duct and intrahepatic).Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 1075-1083 [PMID:17127189].
  • 4Caddy GR, Tham TC. Gallstone disease: Symptoms, diagnosisand endoscopic management of common bile duct stones. BestPract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2006; 20: 1085-1101 [PMID:17127190].
  • 5Williams EJ, Green J, Beckingham I, Parks R, Martin D, LombardM. Guidelines on the management of common bile duct stones(CBDS). Gut 2008; 57: 1004-1021 [PMID: 18321943].
  • 6Scientific Committee of the European Association for EndoscopicSurgery (E.A.E.S.). Diagnosis and treatment of common bile ductstones (CBDS). Results of a consensus development conference.Surg Endosc 1998; 12: 856-864 [PMID: 9602006].
  • 7Maple JT, Ikenberry SO, Anderson MA, Appalaneni V, DeckerGA, Early D, Evans JA, Fanelli RD, Fisher D, Fisher L, FukamiN, Hwang JH, Jain R, Jue T, Khan K, Krinsky ML, Malpas P, Ben-Menachem T, Sharaf RN, Dominitz JA. The role of endoscopy inthe management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74: 731-744 [PMID: 21951472].
  • 8Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, DeBerardinis F, De Bernardin M, Ederle A, Fina P, Fratton A. Majorearly complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: aprospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 1-10[PMID: 9684657].
  • 9Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M,Minoli G, Crosta C, Comin U, Fertitta A, Prada A, Passoni GR,Testoni PA. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP:a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:417-423 [PMID: 11232684].
  • 10Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complicationsof ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60:721-731 [PMID: 15557948].

同被引文献34

引证文献5

二级引证文献30

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部