EUS versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial - 23/08/11
Reprint requests: Tarkan Karakan, MD, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Gastroenterology, Besevler, Ankara 06500, Turkey.Ankara, Turkey
Abstract |
Background |
Factors affecting diagnostic accuracy and comparison of patients in the follow-up period for negative outcomes are not thoroughly investigated in a randomized trial.
Objective |
Our purpose was to compare diagnostic accuracy, complications, and number of interventions.
Design |
Prospective, unicentric, single-blind, randomized study.
Setting |
Single tertiary referral university hospital.
Patients |
One hundred twenty patients with intermediate risk for common bile duct (CBD) stones were randomized to either an EUS-first, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-second (n = 60) versus an ERC-only (n = 60) procedure.
Interventions |
EUS, ERC, sphincterotomy, and balloon sweeping of CBD when needed.
Main Outcome Measurements |
Sensitivity of EUS versus ERC, factors affecting diagnostic capability, complications, total number of endoscopic procedures.
Results |
The sensitivity and specificity of ERC were 75% (95% CI, 42%-93%) and 100% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS were 91% (95% CI, 59%-99%) and 100% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. EUS is more sensitive than ERC in detecting stones smaller than 4 mm (90% vs 23%, P < .01). Although not significant, there was a trend for an increased number of endoscopic procedures in the ERC group compared with the EUS group (98 vs 83). The post-ERC pancreatitis rate was 6 in 120 (5%) in all study patients, and the post-ERC pancreatitis rate in patients with an undilated CBD was 5 of 53 (9.43%). The independent factors for post-ERC pancreatitis are undilated CBD (risk ratio [RR] 6.320; 95% CI, 1.703-11.524, P = .009), allocation into the ERC group (RR 2.107; 95% CI, 1.330-3.339, P = .02), female sex (RR 1.803; 95% CI, 1.155-2.813, P = .03), and age less than 40 years (RR 1.888; 95% CI, 1.245-2.863, P = .01). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed higher rate of negative outcome in the ERC group than in the EUS group (P = .049, log-rank test).
Conclusion |
The EUS-first approach is not associated with further risk for subsequent endoscopic procedures. Patients with an undilated CBD should be investigated by the EUS-first approach to prevent post-ERC pancreatitis.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Abbreviations : CBD, ERC, IQR, NPV, PPV
Plan
| DISCLOSURE: All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication. |
|
| If you want to chat with an author of this article, you may contact him at tkarakan@gmail.com. |
Vol 69 - N° 2
P. 244-252 - février 2009 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- Prospective randomized trial of EUS versus ERCP-guided common bile duct stone removal: an interim report (with video)
- Everson L.A. Artifon, Atul Kumar, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, Adrienne Chu, Bhawna Halwan, Paulo Sakai, Manoop S. Bhutani
- First clinical trial of the “MiRo” capsule endoscope by using a novel transmission technology: electric-field propagation
- Seungmin Bang, Jeong Youp Park, Seok Jeong, Young Ho Kim, Han Bo Shim, Tae Song Kim, Don Haeng Lee, Si Young Song
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?