Contribution of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to the management of patients with suspected common bile duct stones

Bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign: a novel computed tomography finding of common bile duct stone impaction into duodenal major papilla

PURPOSE

Impacted common bile duct stones cause severe acute cholangitis. However, the early and accurate diagnosis, especially iso-attenuating stone impaction, is still challenging. Therefore, we proposed and validated the bile duct penetrating duodenal wall sign (BPDS), which shows the common bile duct penetrating the duodenal wall on coronal reformatted computed tomography (CT), as a novel sign of stone impaction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for acute cholangitis due to common bile duct stones were retrospectively enrolled. Stone impaction was defined by endoscopic findings as a reference standard. Two abdominal radiologists blinded to clinical information interpreted CT images to record the presence of the BPDS. The diagnostic accuracy of the BPDS to diagnose stone impaction was analyzed. Clinical data related to the severity of acute cholangitis were compared between patients with and without the BPDS.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients (mean age 70.6 years; 18 female) were enrolled. The BPDS was observed in 15 patients. Stone impaction occurred in 13/40 (32.5%) cases. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 34/40 (85.0%), 11/13 (84.6%), and 23/27 (85.2%), respectively; 14/16 (87.5%), 5/6 (83.3%), and 9/10 (90.0%) for iso-attenuating stones; and 20/24 (83.3%), 6/7 (85.7%), and 14/17 (82.4%) for high-attenuating stones. Interobserver agreement of the BPDS was substantial (κ = 0.68). In addition, the BPDS was significantly correlated with the number of factors in the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (P = 0.03) and total bilirubin (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

The BPDS was a unique CT imaging finding to identify common bile duct stone impaction regardless of stone attenuation with high accuracy.

Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS)

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are estimated to be present in 10-20% of individuals with symptomatic gallstones. They can result in a number of health problems, including pain, jaundice, infection and acute pancreatitis. A variety of imaging modalities can be employed to identify the condition, while management of confirmed cases of CBDS may involve endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, surgery and radiological methods of stone extraction. Clinicians are therefore confronted with a number of potentially valid options to diagnose and treat individuals with suspected CBDS. The British Society of Gastroenterology first published a guideline on the management of CBDS in 2008. Since then a number of developments in management have occurred along with further systematic reviews of the available evidence. The following recommendations reflect these changes and provide updated guidance to healthcare professionals who are involved in the care of adult patients with suspected or proven CBDS. It is not a protocol and the recommendations contained within should not replace individual clinical judgement.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones are often diagnosed using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), an invasive procedure with risk of significant complications. Using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or Magnetic Resonance CholangioPancreatography (MRCP) first to detect CBD stones can reduce the risk of unnecessary procedures, cut complications and may save costs.

AIM

This study sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of initial EUS or MRCP in patients with suspected CBD stones.

METHODS

This study is a model based cost-utility analysis estimating mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) over a 1 year time horizon. A decision tree model was constructed and populated with probabilities, outcomes and cost data from published sources, including one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Using MRCP to select patients for ERCP was less costly than using EUS to select patients or proceeding directly to ERCP ($1299 versus $1753 and $1781, respectively), with similar QALYs accruing to each option (0.998, 0.998 and 0.997 for EUS, MRCP and direct ERCP, respectively). Initial MRCP was the most cost-effective option with the highest monetary net benefit, and this result was not sensitive to model parameters. MRCP had a 61% probability of being cost-effective at $29,000, the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY commonly used in the UK.

CONCLUSION

From the perspective of the UK NHS, MRCP was the most cost-effective test in the diagnosis of CBD stones.

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in patients suspected of having common bile duct stones prior to undergoing invasive treatment. There has been no systematic review of the accuracy of EUS and MRCP in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones using appropriate reference standards.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov until September 2012. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies and of systematic reviews identified from various databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Medion, and ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility)). We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that provided the number of true positives, false positives, false negatives, and true negatives for EUS or MRCP. We only accepted studies that confirmed the presence of common bile duct stones by extraction of the stones (irrespective of whether this was done by surgical or endoscopic methods) for a positive test, and absence of common bile duct stones by surgical or endoscopic negative exploration of the common bile duct or symptom free follow-up for at least six months for a negative test, as the reference standard in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. We included participants with or without prior diagnosis of cholelithiasis; with or without symptoms and complications of common bile duct stones, with or without prior treatment for common bile duct stones; and before or after cholecystectomy. At least two authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected the data from each study. We used the bivariate model to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 18 studies involving 2366 participants (976 participants with common bile duct stones and 1390 participants without common bile duct stones). Eleven studies evaluated EUS alone, and five studies evaluated MRCP alone. Two studies evaluated both tests. Most studies included patients who were suspected of having common bile duct stones based on abnormal liver function tests; abnormal transabdominal ultrasound; symptoms such as obstructive jaundice, cholangitis, or pancreatitis; or a combination of the above. The proportion of participants who had undergone cholecystectomy varied across studies. Not one of the studies was of high methodological quality. For EUS, the sensitivities ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.85 and 1.00. The summary sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) and specificity (95% CI) of the 13 studies that evaluated EUS (1537 participants; 686 cases and 851 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.97) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.99). For MRCP, the sensitivities ranged between 0.77 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.73 and 0.99. The summary sensitivity and specificity of the seven studies that evaluated MRCP (996 participants; 361 cases and 635 participants without common bile duct stones) were 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity or specificity between EUS and MRCP (P value = 0.5). From the included studies, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 41% the post-test probabilities (with 95% CI) associated with positive and negative EUS test results were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) and 0.03 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). At the same pre-test probability, the post-test probabilities associated with positive and negative MRCP test results were 0.94 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.97) and 0.05 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.09).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic accuracy for detection of common bile duct stones. People with positive EUS or MRCP should undergo endoscopic or surgical extraction of common bile duct stones and those with negative EUS or MRCP do not need further invasive tests. However, if the symptoms persist, further investigations will be indicated. The two tests are similar in terms of diagnostic accuracy and the choice of which test to use will be informed by availability and contra-indications to each test. However, it should be noted that the results are based on studies of poor methodological quality and so the results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies that are of high methodological quality are necessary to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Intraoperative cholangiography facilitates simple transcystic clearance of ductal stones in units without expertise for laparoscopic bile duct surgery

BACKGROUND

In the absence of facilities and expertise for laparoscopic bile duct exploration (LBDE), most patients with suspected ductal calculi undergo preoperative endoscopic duct clearance. Intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) is not performed at the subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study aimed to investigate the rate of successful duct clearance after simple transcystic manipulations.

METHODS

This prospective study investigated 1,408 patients over 13 years in a unit practicing single-session management of biliary calculi. For the great majority, IOC was attempted. Abnormalities were dealt with by flushing of the duct, glucagon injection, Dormia basket trawling, choledochoscopic transcystic exploration, or choledochotomy.

RESULTS

Of 1,056 cholangiograms performed (75%), 287 were abnormal (27.2%). Surgical trainees, operating under supervision, successfully performed 24% of all cholangiograms. Of 396 patients admitted with biliary emergencies, 94.1% had abnormal cholangiograms. Of the 287 patients with abnormal IOCs, 9.4% required no intervention, 18% were clear after glucagon and flushing, and 13% were cleared using Dormia basket trawling under fluoroscopy. A total of 95 patients required formal LBDE, and 2 required postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). No postoperative ERCP for retained stones was required after simple transcystic manipulation. Eight conversions occurred, one during a transcystic exploration. Follow-up evaluation continued for as long as 6 years in some cases. Two patients had recurrent stones after LBDE and a clear postoperative tube cholangiogram.

CONCLUSION

In this series, 10% of the abnormal cholangiograms occurred in patients without preoperative risk factors for bile duct stones. Altogether, 88 IOCs (31%) were cleared after either simple flushing or trawling with a Dormia basket. Formal LBDE was not required for 40% of abnormal cholangiograms. Simple transcystic manipulations to clear the bile ducts justify the use of routine IOC in units without laparoscopic biliary expertise.