BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective, follow-up study was to investigate the value of EUS in the diagnosis of alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients with known (n = 51) or clinically suspected (n = 79) chronic pancreatitis were included. Patients with a history of chronic use of alcohol and recurrent abdominal pain underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and EUS. The 38 patients with normal endoscopic retrograde pancreatography but signs of chronic pancreatitis on EUS were included in a follow-up program. RESULTS: All patients with chronic pancreatitis confirmed by retrograde pancreatography (n = 92; 70.8%) had ductal or parenchymal changes detectable with EUS. Among 38 patients (29.2%) with normal retrograde pancreatography, 32 (84.2%) presented with morphologic features consistent with chronic pancreatitis by EUS. During follow-up (median 18 months, range 6-25 months) chronic pancreatitis was confirmed by repeat endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in 22 of these 32 patients (68.8%). On the basis of these follow-up data, the sensitivities of EUS and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography at the time of the first examination were, respectively, 100% and 80.7% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS detects chronic pancreatitis in all cases if endoscopic retrograde pancreatography was suggestive for chronic pancreatitis. However, EUS is more sensitive than endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in the detection of early morphologic changes of chronic pancreatitis in patients with abdominal pain and a history of chronic and continued ingestion of alcohol.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective, follow-up study was to investigate the value of EUS in the diagnosis of alcohol-induced chronic pancreatitis. METHODS: One hundred thirty patients with known (n = 51) or clinically suspected (n = 79) chronic pancreatitis were included. Patients with a history of chronic use of alcohol and recurrent abdominal pain underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and EUS. The 38 patients with normal endoscopic retrograde pancreatography but signs of chronic pancreatitis on EUS were included in a follow-up program. RESULTS: All patients with chronic pancreatitis confirmed by retrograde pancreatography (n = 92; 70.8%) had ductal or parenchymal changes detectable with EUS. Among 38 patients (29.2%) with normal retrograde pancreatography, 32 (84.2%) presented with morphologic features consistent with chronic pancreatitis by EUS. During follow-up (median 18 months, range 6-25 months) chronic pancreatitis was confirmed by repeat endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in 22 of these 32 patients (68.8%). On the basis of these follow-up data, the sensitivities of EUS and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography at the time of the first examination were, respectively, 100% and 80.7% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS detects chronic pancreatitis in all cases if endoscopic retrograde pancreatography was suggestive for chronic pancreatitis. However, EUS is more sensitive than endoscopic retrograde pancreatography in the detection of early morphologic changes of chronic pancreatitis in patients with abdominal pain and a history of chronic and continued ingestion of alcohol.