Gallstone pancreatitis--who really needs an ERCP?

Management of Gallstone Pancreatitis: A Review

Importance

Gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) is the leading cause of acute pancreatitis, accounting for approximately 50% of cases. Without appropriate and timely treatment, patients are at increased risk of disease progression and recurrence. While there is increasing consensus among guidelines for the management of mild GSP, adherence to these guidelines remains poor. In addition, there is minimal evidence to guide clinicians in the treatment of moderately severe and severe pancreatitis.

Observations

The management of GSP continues to evolve and is dependent on severity of acute pancreatitis and concomitant biliary diagnoses. Across the spectrum of severity, there is evidence that goal-directed, moderate fluid resuscitation decreases the risk of fluid overload and mortality compared with aggressive resuscitation. Patients with isolated, mild GSP should undergo same-admission cholecystectomy; early cholecystectomy within 48 hours of admission has been supported by several randomized clinical trials. Cholecystectomy should be delayed for patients with severe disease; for severe and moderately severe disease, the optimal timing remains unclear. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is only useful for patients with suspected cholangitis or biliary obstruction, although the concomitance of these conditions in patients with GSP is rare. Modality of evaluation of the common bile duct to rule out concomitant choledocholithiasis varies and should be tailored to level of concern based on objective measures, such as laboratory results and imaging findings. Among these modalities, intraoperative cholangiography is associated with reduced length of stay and decreased use of ERCP. However, the benefit of routine intraoperative cholangiography remains in question.

Conclusions and Relevance

Treatment of GSP is dependent on disease severity, which can be difficult to assess. A comprehensive review of clinically relevant evidence and recommendations on GSP severity grading, fluid resuscitation, timing of cholecystectomy, need for ERCP, and evaluation and management of persistent choledocholithiasis can help guide clinicians in diagnosis and management.

Evaluation of ASGE Criteria for Prediction of Choledocholithiasis: Can Early Endoscopic Ultrasound Utilization Make the Prediction More Accurate?

Background

ASGE predictive model for the detection of choledocholithiasis is a reasonable approach for the management of patients with cholelithiasis. Surgeons do not pursue cholecystectomy without evaluation of the biliary system when laboratory tests and diagnostic imaging evidence show biliary duct involvement. Literature revisions reveal that the prediction of choledocholithiasis based on ASGE criteria suffers from poor accuracy which results in unnecessary ERCPs. We decided to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the ASGE predictive model for the detection of choledocholithiasis with the hope that early EUS would obviate the need for unnecessary ERCPs among highly probable patients for choledocholithiasis based on ASGE criteria.

Methods

This is a prospective intervention and control study on the accuracy of ASGE criteria for the prediction of choledocholithiasis. To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of ASGE criteria, patients were followed in two groups of controls who were treated based on ASGE guidelines and cases who underwent primary EUS. The clinical relevance of the ASGE criteria was estimated by sensitivity and specificity using SPSS Statistics 28 software. Then, absolute risk reduction utilizing primary EUS was also calculated.

Results

The sensitivity and specificity of the ASGE predictive guideline for choledocholithiasis were estimated to be 62.31% and 51.85%, respectively. Evaluation of the ASGE guideline also revealed that patients in the intermediate probability group who finally required ERCP based on EUS results (false-negatives) were estimated to be 49.1% and patients who were predicted to require ERCP but finally did not need ERCP (false positives) were estimated to be 37.68%. The comparison of the two groups revealed the need for ERCP in about 55.56% of the primary EUS group and 77.42% in the ASGE group. Utilization of primary EUS reduced the need for ERCP by an absolute risk reduction of 0.299. (Primary Endpoint).

Conclusion

ASGE guideline is associated with the overestimation of ERCP in cholelithiasis. The usage of primary EUS will reduce the need for ERCP.