Literature DB >> 18299731

The clinical impact and cost implication of endoscopic ultrasound on use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital.

N Alhayaf1, E Lalor, V Bain, J McKaigney, G Singh Sandha.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a safe alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnostic biliary imaging in choledocholithiasis. Evidence linking a decline in diagnostic ERCP with the introduction of EUS in clinical practice is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical impact and cost implications of a new EUS program on diagnostic ERCP at a tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of data collected during the first year of EUS at the University of Alberta Hospital (Edmonton, Alberta). Patients were referred for ERCP because of suspicion of choledocholithiasis based on clinical, biochemical and/or radiological parameters. If they were assessed to have an intermediate probability of choledocholithiasis, EUS was performed first. ERCP was performed if EUS suggested choledocholithiasis, whereas patients were clinically followed for six months if their EUS was normal. Cost data were assessed from a third-party payer perspective, and cost savings were expressed in terms of ERCP procedures avoided.
RESULTS: Over 12 months, 90 patients (63 female, mean age 58 years) underwent EUS for suspected biliary tract abnormalities. EUS suggested choledocholithiasis in 20 patients (22%), and this was confirmed by ERCP in 17 of the 20 patients. EUS was normal in 69 patients, and none underwent a subsequent ERCP during a six-month follow-up period. One patient had pancreatic cancer and did not undergo ERCP. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS for choledocholithiasis were 100% and 96%, respectively. A total of 440 ERCP procedures were performed over the same 12-month period, suggesting that EUS resulted in a 14% reduction in ERCP procedures (70 of 510). There were no complications of EUS. The cost of 90 EUS procedures was $42,840, compared with $108,854 for 70 ERCP procedures. The cost savings for the first year were $66,014.
CONCLUSION: EUS appears to be accurate, safe and cost effective in diagnostic biliary imaging for suspected choledocholithiasis. The impact of EUS is the avoidance of ERCP in selected cases, thereby preventing the risk of complications. Diagnostic ERCP should not be performed in centres and regions with physicians trained in EUS.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18299731      PMCID: PMC2659132          DOI: 10.1155/2008/498213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  17 in total

Review 1.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: ERCP for diagnosis and therapy, January 14-16, 2002.

Authors:  Sidney Cohen; Bruce R Bacon; Jesse A Berlin; David Fleischer; Gail A Hecht; Patrick J Loehrer; Alfred E McNair; Michael Mulholland; Nancy J Norton; Linda Rabeneck; David F Ransohoff; Amnon Sonnenberg; Michael W Vannier
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  The substitution of endoscopic ultrasound for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: implications for service development and training.

Authors:  John Meenan; Jeremy Tibble; Priyajit Prasad; Mark Wilkinson
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 2.566

3.  Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: a prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography.

Authors:  M Sugiyama; Y Atomi
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.

Authors:  M L Freeman; D B Nelson; S Sherman; G B Haber; M E Herman; P J Dorsher; J P Moore; M B Fennerty; M E Ryan; M J Shaw; J D Lande; A M Pheley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-09-26       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Patterns of use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian province.

Authors:  Robert J Hilsden; Joseph Romagnuolo; Gary R May
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 3.522

6.  Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the detection of bile duct stones.

Authors:  S A Norton; D Alderson
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.939

7.  Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography.

Authors:  P Amouyal; G Amouyal; P Lévy; S Tuzet; L Palazzo; V Vilgrain; B Gayet; J Belghiti; F Fékété; P Bernades
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  C S Shim; J H Joo; C W Park; Y S Kim; J S Lee; M S Lee; S G Hwang
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 10.093

9.  Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis.

Authors:  F Prat; G Amouyal; P Amouyal; G Pelletier; J Fritsch; A D Choury; C Buffet; J P Etienne
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-01-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Is there a difference in diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact between endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography?

Authors:  A P Ainsworth; S R Rafaelsen; P A Wamberg; J Durup; T K Pless; M B Mortensen
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 10.093

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Vanja Giljaca; Yemisi Takwoingi; David Higgie; Goran Poropat; Davor Štimac; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-02-26

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Vanja Giljaca; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; Yemisi Takwoingi; David Higgie; Goran Poropat; Davor Štimac; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-02-26

3.  A pilot study of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) overexpression in the brush cytology of patients with malignant pancreatic or biliary strictures.

Authors:  John F Gibbs; Michael Schlieman; Paramvir Singh; Rakhee Saxena; Maisie Martinick; Alan D Hutson; James Corasanti
Journal:  HPB Surg       Date:  2009-11-30

4.  Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration of solid lesions over time: Experience from a new endoscopic ultrasound program at a Canadian community hospital.

Authors:  Mohan Cooray; Irina Nistor; Joe Pham; Douglas Bair; Naveen Arya
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2017 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.628

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

Authors:  Dadang Makmun; Achmad Fauzi; Hamzah Shatri
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-02-28

6.  Accuracy and Quality Assessment of EUS-FNA: A Single-Center Large Cohort of Biopsies.

Authors:  Benjamin Ephraim Bluen; Jesse Lachter; Iyad Khamaysi; Yassin Kamal; Leonid Malkin; Ruth Keren; Ron Epelbaum; Yoram Kluger
Journal:  Diagn Ther Endosc       Date:  2012-10-31

7.  Impact of introduction of endoscopic ultrasound on volume, success, and complexity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a tertiary referral center.

Authors:  Harathi Yandrapu; Sherif Elhanafi; Farhanaz Chowdhury; Jiayang Liu; Eduardo J Onate; Alok Dwivedi; Mohamed O Othman
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.275

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.