Development of clinical prediction rule for the requirement of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) on endoscopic CBD stone clearance.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2023
Historique:
received: 24 11 2022
accepted: 25 02 2023
entrez: 17 3 2023
pubmed: 18 3 2023
medline: 22 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To develop a simplified scoring system for clinical prediction of difficulty in CBD stone removal to assist endoscopists working in resource-limited settings in deciding whether to proceed with an intervention or refer patients to a center capable of performing additional procedures and interventions. This study included patients with CBD stones who underwent ERCP at Pattani Hospital between August 2017 and December 2021. Retrospective cohort data was collected and patients were categorized into two groups: bile duct stones successfully treated by endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy and extraction compared to the former method combined with EPLBD. We explored potential predictors using multivariable logistic regression. The chosen logistic coefficients were transformed into a scoring system based on risk with internal validation via bootstrapping procedure. Among the 155 patients who had successful endoscopic therapy for bile duct stones, there were 79 (50.97%) cases of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy, EPLBD and extraction versus 76 (49.03%) cases without EPLBD. The factors used to derive a scoring system included the size of CBD stones >15 mm, the difference between the stone and distal CBD diameter >2mm, distal CBD arm length <36 mm and stone shape. The score-based model's area under ROC was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.93). For clinical use, the range of scores from 0 to 16, was divided into two subcategories based on CBD stone removal difficulty requiring EPLBD to derive the PPV. For scores <5 and ≥ 5, the PPV was 23.40 (p <0.001) and 93.44 (p <0.001) respectively. The Bootstrap sampling method indicated a prediction ability of 0.88 (AuROC, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.94). This scoring system has acceptable prediction performance in assisting endoscopists in their choice of stone removal procedure.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36928213
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282899
pii: PONE-D-22-32458
pmc: PMC10019717
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0282899

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Wongkanong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

Prz Gastroenterol. 2014;9(2):109-15
pubmed: 25061492
Lancet. 1997 Apr 19;349(9059):1124-9
pubmed: 9113010
Gut. 1993 Dec;34(12):1718-21
pubmed: 8282260
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;42(8):1006-10
pubmed: 17613932
Diagn Ther Endosc. 2014;2014:861689
pubmed: 25349470
Endoscopy. 2019 May;51(5):472-491
pubmed: 30943551
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Aug;29(8):1614-9
pubmed: 24628028
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2011 Aug;10(4):403-7
pubmed: 21813390
Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2006 Apr;9(2):123-32
pubmed: 16539873
Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Feb;57(2):156-9
pubmed: 12556775
J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(3):329-38
pubmed: 16022643
J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Dec;48(12):1495-501
pubmed: 8543963
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Jan 28;14(4):651-2
pubmed: 18203306
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jun;89(6):1075-1105.e15
pubmed: 30979521
Gastrointest Endosc. 1974 May;20(4):148-51
pubmed: 4825160
World J Gastroenterol. 2013 Jun 28;19(24):3883-91
pubmed: 23840129
Endoscopy. 2021 May;53(5):491-498
pubmed: 32838430
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1982 Jun 11;107(23):895-7
pubmed: 7084054
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Dec;66(6):1154-60
pubmed: 17945223
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1974 Mar 15;99(11):496-7
pubmed: 4835515
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2002;9(2):191-5
pubmed: 12140605

Auteurs

Chote Wongkanong (C)

Department of Surgery, Pattani Hospital, Pattani, Thailand.

Jayanton Patumanond (J)

Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Thawee Ratanachu-Ek (T)

Surgical Endoscopy Unit, Department of Surgery Rajavithi Hospital, Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Mueang Nonthaburi, Thailand.

Sunhawit Junrungsee (S)

Clinical Surgical Research Center, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Apichat Tantraworasin (A)

Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Clinical Surgical Research Center, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH