Validation of choledocholithiasis predictors from the "2019 ASGE Guideline for the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis."
Choledocholithiasis
ERCP
EUS
Gallstones
MRCP
Journal
Surgical endoscopy
ISSN: 1432-2218
Titre abrégé: Surg Endosc
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8806653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2021
accepted:
27
09
2021
pubmed:
17
10
2021
medline:
14
5
2022
entrez:
16
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Identifying patients likely to have CDL is an important clinical dilemma because endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), carries a 5-7% risk of adverse events. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic test performance of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE criteria used to help risk stratify patients with suspected CDL. Consecutive patients evaluated for possible CDL from 2013 to 2019 were identified from surgical, endoscopic, and radiologic databases at a single academic center. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent ERCP and/or cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) for suspected CDL. We calculated the diagnostic test performance of criteria from both guidelines and compared their discrimination using the receiver operator curve. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify the strongest component predictors. 1098 patients [age 57.9 ± 19.0 years, 62.8% (690) F] were included. 66.3% (728) were found to have CDL on ERCP and/or IOC. When using the 2019 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 65.8, 78.9, 86.3, 54.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Using the 2010 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 50.5, 78.9, 82.5, 44.8, and 60.1%, respectively. The AUC for high-risk criteria using the 2019 guidelines [0.726 (0.695, 0.758)] was greater than for the 2010 guidelines [0.647 (0.614, 0.681)]. The key difference providing the increased discrimination was the inclusion of stones on any imaging modality, which increased the sensitivity to 55.0% from 29.1%. Not including CDL on imaging or cholangitis, a dilated CBD was the strongest individual predictor of CDL on multivariate analysis (OR 3.70, CI 2.80, 4.89). Compared to 2010, the 2019 high-risk criterion improves diagnostic test performance, but still performs suboptimally. Less invasive tests, such as EUS or MRCP, should be considered in patients with suspected CDL prior to ERCP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Identifying patients likely to have CDL is an important clinical dilemma because endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), carries a 5-7% risk of adverse events. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic test performance of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE criteria used to help risk stratify patients with suspected CDL.
METHODS
Consecutive patients evaluated for possible CDL from 2013 to 2019 were identified from surgical, endoscopic, and radiologic databases at a single academic center. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent ERCP and/or cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) for suspected CDL. We calculated the diagnostic test performance of criteria from both guidelines and compared their discrimination using the receiver operator curve. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify the strongest component predictors.
RESULTS
1098 patients [age 57.9 ± 19.0 years, 62.8% (690) F] were included. 66.3% (728) were found to have CDL on ERCP and/or IOC. When using the 2019 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 65.8, 78.9, 86.3, 54.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Using the 2010 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 50.5, 78.9, 82.5, 44.8, and 60.1%, respectively. The AUC for high-risk criteria using the 2019 guidelines [0.726 (0.695, 0.758)] was greater than for the 2010 guidelines [0.647 (0.614, 0.681)]. The key difference providing the increased discrimination was the inclusion of stones on any imaging modality, which increased the sensitivity to 55.0% from 29.1%. Not including CDL on imaging or cholangitis, a dilated CBD was the strongest individual predictor of CDL on multivariate analysis (OR 3.70, CI 2.80, 4.89).
CONCLUSION
Compared to 2010, the 2019 high-risk criterion improves diagnostic test performance, but still performs suboptimally. Less invasive tests, such as EUS or MRCP, should be considered in patients with suspected CDL prior to ERCP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34654972
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08752-z
pii: 10.1007/s00464-021-08752-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4199-4206Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR000448
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA091842
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Kratzer W, Mason RA, Kachele V (1999) Prevalence of gallstones in sonographic surveys worldwide. J Clin Ultrasound 27:1–7
doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0096(199901)27:1<1::AID-JCU1>3.0.CO;2-H
Shaffer EA (2006) Epidemiology of gallbladder stone disease. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 20:981–996
doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2006.05.004
Figueiredo JC, Haiman C, Porcel J et al (2017) Sex and ethnic/racial-specific risk factors for gallbladder disease. BMC Gastroenterol 17:153
doi: 10.1186/s12876-017-0678-6
Frossard JL, Morel PM (2010) Detection and management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 72:808–816
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.033
Peery AF, Crockett SD, Barritt AS et al (2015) Burden of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 149:1731–1741
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.08.045
Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S et al (2019) ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 89:1075–1105
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.001
Cotton PB (1980) Non-operative removal of bile duct stones by duodenoscopic sphincterotomy. Br J Surg 67:1–5
doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800670102
Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S et al (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335:909–919
doi: 10.1056/NEJM199609263351301
Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G et al (2007) Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1781
doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x
Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA et al (2010) The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 71:1–9
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.041
Rubin MIN, Thosani NC, Tanikella R et al (2013) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: testing the current guidelines. Dig Liver Dis 45:744–749
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2013.02.005
Magalhães J, Rosa B, Cotter J (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: from guidelines to clinical practice. World J Gastrointest Endosc 7:128
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i2.128
Adams MA, Hosmer AE, Wamsteker EJ et al (2015) Predicting the likelihood of a persistent bile duct stone in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis: accuracy of existing guidelines and the impact of laboratory trends. Gastrointest Endosc 82:88–93
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.023
Suarez AL, LaBarre NT, Cotton PB et al (2016) An assessment of existing risk stratification guidelines for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 30:4613–4618
doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4799-8
Lee HW, Song TJ, Park DH et al (2019) Diagnostic performance of the current risk-stratified approach with computed tomography for suspected choledocholithiasis and its options when negative finding. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 18:366–372
doi: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2019.06.005
Chandran A, Rashtak S, Patil P et al (2020) Comparing diagnostic accuracy of current practice guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis: outcomes from a large healthcare system comprising both academic and community setting. Gastrointest Endosc 93:1351
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.033