BACKGROUND:Primary upper endoscopy (EGD) and transabdominal US (TUS) are often performed in patients with upper abdominal pain. OBJECTIVE: Primary: Determine whether the combination of EGD and EUS was equivalent to EGD plus TUS in the diagnostic evaluation of upper abdominal pain. Secondary: Compare EUS versus TUS in detecting abdominal lesions, and compare EGD by using an oblique-viewing echoendoscope versus the standard, forward-viewing endoscope in detecting mucosal lesions. DESIGN: Prospective, paired design. SETTING:Six academic endoscopy centers. PATIENTS: This study involved patients with upper abdominal pain referred for endoscopy. INTERVENTION: All patients had EGD, EUS, and TUS. The EGD was done using both an oblique-viewing echoendoscope and the standard, forward-viewing endoscope (randomized order) by two separate endoscopists in a blinded fashion, followed by EUS. TUS was performed within 4 weeks of EGD/EUS, also in a blinded fashion. FOLLOW-UP: telephone interviews and chart reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnose possible etiology of upper abdominal pain and detect clinically significant lesions. RESULTS: A diagnosis of the etiology of upper abdominal pain was made in 66 of 172 patients (38%). The diagnostic rate was 42 of 66 patients (64%) for EGD plus EUS versus 41 of 66 patients (62%) for EGD plus TUS, which was statistically equivalent (McNemar test; P = .27). One hundred ninety-eight lesions were diagnosed with either EUS or TUS. EUS was superior to TUS for visualizing the pancreas (P < .0001) and for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis (P = .03). Two biliary stones were detected only by EUS. Two hundred fifty-one mucosal lesions were similarly diagnosed with EGD with either the standard, forward-viewing endoscope or the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (kappa = 0.48 [95% CI, .43-.54]). EGD with the standard, forward-viewing endoscope was preferred for biopsies. LIMITATIONS: No cost analysis. CONCLUSION: The combination of EGD with EUS is equivalent to EGD plus TUS for diagnosing a potential etiology of upper abdominal pain. EUS is superior to TUS for detecting chronic pancreatitis. EGD combined with EUS should be considered in the first-line diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Primary upper endoscopy (EGD) and transabdominal US (TUS) are often performed in patients with upper abdominal pain. OBJECTIVE: Primary: Determine whether the combination of EGD and EUS was equivalent to EGD plus TUS in the diagnostic evaluation of upper abdominal pain. Secondary: Compare EUS versus TUS in detecting abdominal lesions, and compare EGD by using an oblique-viewing echoendoscope versus the standard, forward-viewing endoscope in detecting mucosal lesions. DESIGN: Prospective, paired design. SETTING: Six academic endoscopy centers. PATIENTS: This study involved patients with upper abdominal pain referred for endoscopy. INTERVENTION: All patients had EGD, EUS, and TUS. The EGD was done using both an oblique-viewing echoendoscope and the standard, forward-viewing endoscope (randomized order) by two separate endoscopists in a blinded fashion, followed by EUS. TUS was performed within 4 weeks of EGD/EUS, also in a blinded fashion. FOLLOW-UP: telephone interviews and chart reviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnose possible etiology of upper abdominal pain and detect clinically significant lesions. RESULTS: A diagnosis of the etiology of upper abdominal pain was made in 66 of 172 patients (38%). The diagnostic rate was 42 of 66 patients (64%) for EGD plus EUS versus 41 of 66 patients (62%) for EGD plus TUS, which was statistically equivalent (McNemar test; P = .27). One hundred ninety-eight lesions were diagnosed with either EUS or TUS. EUS was superior to TUS for visualizing the pancreas (P < .0001) and for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis (P = .03). Two biliary stones were detected only by EUS. Two hundred fifty-one mucosal lesions were similarly diagnosed with EGD with either the standard, forward-viewing endoscope or the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (kappa = 0.48 [95% CI, .43-.54]). EGD with the standard, forward-viewing endoscope was preferred for biopsies. LIMITATIONS: No cost analysis. CONCLUSION: The combination of EGD with EUS is equivalent to EGD plus TUS for diagnosing a potential etiology of upper abdominal pain. EUS is superior to TUS for detecting chronic pancreatitis. EGD combined with EUS should be considered in the first-line diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain.
Authors: A V Sahai; I D Penman; G Mishra; D Williams; A Pearson; M B Wallace; A van Velse; B J Hoffman; R H Hawes Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: A Nakaizumi; H Uehara; H Iishi; M Tatsuta; T Kitamura; C Kuroda; H Ohigashi; O Ishikawa; S Okuda Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: A V Sahai; M Zimmerman; L Aabakken; P R Tarnasky; J T Cunningham; A van Velse; R H Hawes; B J Hoffman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andreas Jung; Christoph Schlag; Valentin Becker; Stefan von Delius; Christian Lersch; Petia Jeliazkova; Alexander Herner; Monther Bajbouj; Tibor Schuster; Alexander Meining Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono; Barbara Braden; Sean Burmeister; Silvia Carrara; Xinwu Cui; Milena Di Leo; Yi Dong; Pietro Fusaroli; Uwe Gottschalk; Andrew J Healey; Michael Hocke; Stephan Hollerbach; Julio Iglesias Garcia; André Ignee; Christian Jürgensen; Michel Kahaleh; Masayuki Kitano; Rastislav Kunda; Alberto Larghi; Kathleen Möller; Bertrand Napoleon; Kofi W Oppong; Maria Chiara Petrone; Adrian Saftoiu; Rajesh Puri; Anand V Sahai; Erwin Santo; Malay Sharma; Assaad Soweid; Siyu Sun; Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh; Peter Vilmann; Hans Seifert; Christian Jenssen Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.628