Endosonography versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in diagnosing extrahepatic biliary obstruction

Diagnostic Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography Versus the Gold Standard Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Detecting Common Bile Duct Stones

Background and objectives Stone in the biliary tract is one of the most common causes of hospitalization. However, it is difficult to determine the prevalence of gallstones in the general population because they are often asymptomatic. Thus, management lies in the proper clearance of the common bile duct (CBD) along with the removal of the gallbladder, for which it must be diagnosed on time with proper accuracy. Imaging modalities including magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) provide true visualization of choledocholithiasis with comparable sensitivities. The gold standard ERCP is an invasive procedure and may cause complications, such as pancreatitis, perforation, and bleeding. EUS is a minimally invasive procedure to assess the biliary tract using high-frequency sound waves. Until now the EUS has not been addressed much in our local tertiary care setups and this study was conducted to evaluate its accuracy in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. The objective of our study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy (specificity and sensitivity) of EUS versus ERCP for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Materials and methods This retrospective study was conducted on patients suspected of having choledocholithiasis undergoing both EUS and ERCP based on their history, clinical symptoms, and laboratory test results including upper abdominal pain, deranged liver function enzymes, and a dilated CBD on radiology. EUS was initially performed for the diagnosis of extrahepatic biliary obstruction followed by one or more of the confirmatory criterion standard tests (including ERCP). In order to reduce the chances of passage of stone resulting in negative analysis, only those patients were included in which both procedures were conducted temporally close together (24-72 hours in most instances). The main outcome measures were diagnostic accuracy with the help of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) using a receiver operating characteristic curve. A total of 123 patients met the inclusion criteria via non-probability consecutive sampling methods. Results The mean age of our study population was 50.30 ± 13.91. We included 63 males (51.2%) and 60 females (48.8%). The most frequent indication for undergoing diagnostic procedures was deranged liver function tests (67.47%). The frequent comorbidities reported were hypertension (29.26%), diabetes (21.95%), chronic liver disease (16.26%), and ischemic heart disease (4.87%). Mean alkaline phosphatase and gamma-glutamyl transferase levels were markedly raised from the baseline in the study population. Post-ERCP complications were also reported in some of the study participants. About 85 patients (69.10%) were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis among the study participants. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS was compared with ERCP revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.930, standard error of 0.031, 95% confidence interval of 0.868-0.991, the sensitivity of 89.5%, specificity of 96.5%, positive predictive value of 91.9%, and negative predictive value of 95.3%. Conclusion It is recommended that ERCP can be selectively conducted or excluded in patients with biliary obstruction in case of EUS negative, thus minimizing the complications and morbidity associated with an invasive procedure, with our results showing a comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS.

Sensitivity and Specificity of Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography versus Endoscopic Ultrasonography against Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Diagnosing Choledocholithiasis: The Indonesian Experience

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Biliary stone disease is one of the most common conditions leading to hospitalization. In addition to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are required in diagnosing choledocholithiasis. This study aimed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP against ERCP in diagnosing choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted after prospective collection of data involving 62 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from June 2013 to August 2014. Patients were divided into two groups. The first group (31 patients) underwent EUS and the second group (31 patients) underwent MRCP. Then, ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them to ERCP, which is the gold standard.

RESULTS

The male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean ages were 47.25 years in the first group and 52.9 years in the second group. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for EUS were 96%, 57%, 87%, 88%, and 80% respectively, and for MRCP were 81%, 40%, 68%, 74%, and 50%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is a better diagnostic tool than MRCP for diagnosing choledocholithiasis.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) are tests used in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones in people suspected of having common bile duct stones. There has been no systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and IOC.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the accuracy of ERCP and IOC for the diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS, and Clinicaltrials.gov to September 2012. To identify additional studies, we searched the references of included studies and 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 ERCP or IOC. 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 screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion independently.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently collected data from each study. We used the bivariate model to summarise the sensitivity and specificity of the tests.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five studies including 318 participants (180 participants with and 138 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP and five studies including 654 participants (125 participants with and 529 participants without common bile duct stones) that reported the diagnostic accuracy of IOC. Most studies included people with symptoms (participants with jaundice or pancreatitis) suspected of having common bile duct stones based on blood tests, ultrasound, or both, prior to the performance of ERCP or IOC. Most studies included participants who had not previously undergone removal of the gallbladder (cholecystectomy). None of the included studies was of high methodological quality as evaluated by the QUADAS-2 tool (quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy studies). The sensitivities of ERCP ranged between 0.67 and 0.94 and the specificities ranged between 0.92 and 1.00. For ERCP, the summary sensitivity was 0.83 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.90) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.00). The sensitivities of IOC ranged between 0.75 and 1.00 and the specificities ranged between 0.96 and 1.00. For IOC, the summary sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.00). For ERCP, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35 estimated from the included studies (i.e., 35% of people suspected of having common bile duct stones were confirmed to have gallstones by the reference standard), the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and negative test results was 0.09 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.14). For IOC, at the median pre-test probability of common bile duct stones of 0.35, the post-test probabilities associated with positive test results was 0.98 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.00) and negative test results was 0.01 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.10). There was weak evidence of a difference in sensitivity (P value = 0.05) with IOC showing higher sensitivity than ERCP. There was no evidence of a difference in specificity (P value = 0.7) with both tests having similar specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although the sensitivity of IOC appeared to be better than that of ERCP, this finding may be unreliable because none of the studies compared both tests in the same study populations and most of the studies were methodologically flawed. It appears that both tests were fairly accurate in guiding further invasive treatment as most people diagnosed with common bile duct stones by these tests had common bile duct stones. Some people may have common bile duct stones in spite of having a negative ERCP or IOC result. Such people may have to be re-tested if the clinical suspicion of common bile duct stones is very high because of their symptoms or persistently abnormal liver function tests. However, the results should be interpreted with caution given the limited quantity and quality of the evidence.

Interpretation and management of hepatic abnormalities in pregnancy

The spectrum of liver disease in pregnancy includes liver disease unrelated to pregnancy, liver diseases that occur with increased frequency or severity in pregnancy, and liver disease specific to pregnancy. Diseases of the liver unique to pregnancy reliably occur at specific points in the gestational spectrum. Thus, gestational age, a comprehensive history, and a clinically driven diagnostic evaluation is critical in approaching a pregnant patient with abnormal liver chemistries or function. Early recognition of these conditions is important and although management may be expectant, some patients require targeted therapy or necessitate prompt delivery, which can be life-saving to both mother and child.