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

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.

Oral purgative and simethicone before small bowel capsule endoscopy

AIM:To evaluate small bowel cleansing quality,diagnostic yield and transit time,comparing three cleansing protocols prior to capsule endoscopy.METHODS:Sixty patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to one of the following cleansing protocols:patients in Group A underwent a 24 h liquid diet and overnight fasting;patients in Group B followed protocol A and subsequently were administered 2 L of polyethylene glycol(PEG) the evening before the procedure;patients in Group C followed protocol B and were additionally administered 100 mg of simethicone 30 min prior to capsule ingestion.Small bowel cleansing was independently assessed by two experienced endoscopists and classified as poor,fair,good or excellent according to the proportion of small bowel mucosa under perfect conditions for visualization.When there was no agreement between the two endoscopists,the images were reviewed and discussed until a consensus was reached.The preparation was considered acceptable if > 50% or adequate if > 75% of the mucosa was in perfect cleansing condition.The amount of bubbles was assessed independently and it was considered significant if it prevented a correct interpretation of the images.Positive endoscopic findings,gastric emptying time(GET) and small bowel transit time(SBTT) were recorded for each examination.RESULTS:There was a trend favoring Group B in achieving an acceptable(including fair,good or excellent) level of cleansing(Group A:65%;Group B:83.3%;Group C:68.4%) [P = not significant(NS)] and favoring Group C in attaining an excellent level of cleansing(Group A:10%;Group B:16.7%;Group C:21.1%)(P = NS).The number of patients with an adequate cleansing of the small bowel,corresponding to an excellent or good classification,was 5(25%) in Group A,5(27.8%) in Group B and 4(21.1%) in Group C(P = 0.892).Conversely,7 patients(35%) in Group A,3 patients(16.7%) in Group B and 6 patients(31.6%) in Group C were considered to have poor small bowel cleansing(P = 0.417),with significant fluid or debris such that the examination was unreliable.The proportion of patients with a significant amount of bubbles was 50% in Group A,27.8% in Group B and 15.8% in Group C(P = 0.065).This was significantly lower in Group C when compared to Group A(P = 0.026).The mean GET was 27.8 min for Group A,27.2 min for Group B and 40.7 min for Group C(P = 0.381).The mean SBTT was 256.4 min for Group A,256.1 min for Group B and 258.1 min for Group C(P = 0.998).Regarding to the rate of complete examinations,the capsule reached the cecum in 20 patients(100%) in Group A,16 patients(88.9%) in Group B and 17 patients(89.5%) in Group C(P = 0.312).A definite diagnosis based on relevant small bowel endoscopic lesions was established in 60% of the patients in Group A(12 patients),44.4% in Group B(8 patients) and 57.8% in Group C(11 patients)(P = 0.587).CONCLUSION:Preparation with 2 L of PEG before small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE) may improve small bowel cleansing and the quality of visualization.Simethicone may further reduce intraluminal bubbles.No significant differences were found regarding GET,SBTT and the proportion of complete exploration or diagnostic yield among the three different cleansing protocols.

Finding the solution for incomplete small bowel capsule endoscopy

AIM:To evaluate whether the use of real time viewer(RTV)and administration of domperidone to patients with delayed gastric passage of the capsule could reduce the rate of incomplete examinations(IE)and improve the diagnostic yield of small bowel capsule endoscopy(SBCE).METHODS:Prospective single center interventional study,from June 2012 to February 2013.Capsule location was systematically checked one hour after ingestion using RTV.If it remained in the stomach,the patient received 10 mg domperidone per os and the location of the capsule was rechecked after 30 min.If the capsule remained in the stomach a second dose of10 mg of domperidone was administered orally.After another 30 min the position was rechecked and if the capsule remained in the stomach,it was passed into the duodenum by upper gastrointestinal(GI)endoscopy.The rate of IE and diagnostic yield of SBCE were compared with those of examinations performed before the use of RTV or domperidone in our Department(control group,January 2009-May 2012).RESULTS:Both groups were similar regarding age,sex,indication,inpatient status and surgical history.The control group included 307 patients,with 48(15.6%)IE.The RTV group included 82 patients,with3(3.7%)IE,P=0.003.In the control group,average gastric time was significantly longer in patients with IE than in patients with complete examination of the small bowel(77 min vs 26 min,P=0.003).In the RTV group,the capsule remained in the stomach one hour after ingestion in 14/82 patients(17.0%)vs 48/307(15.6%)in the control group,P=0.736.Domperidone did not significantly affect small bowel transit time(260min vs 297 min,P=0.229).The capsule detected positive findings in 39%of patients in the control group and 49%in the RTV group(P=0.081).CONCLUSION:The use of RTV and selective administration of domperidone to patients with delayed gastric passage of the capsule significantly reduces incomplete examinations,with no effect on small bowel transit time or diagnostic yield.