GOALS: To examine the benefits and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in tandem for distal obstructive jaundice. MATERIALS AND METHODS:From September 2007 to August 2012, patients with suspected distal obstructive jaundice were randomized to single-session EUS-ERCP (group A), EUS, and ERCP in different sessions (group B), and an ERCP-only procedure (group C). Data were prospectively collected on the following parameters: ERCP-avoided, duration of procedure, the dose of propofol, complications, and diagnostic yield. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were divided randomly into 60 patients in group A, 60 in group B, and 60 in group C. A total of four therapeutic ERCP were canceled after EUS. The ERCP procedural time in group A was shorter, although not significantly different from that in group B (group A vs. group B: 41.24±7.57 vs. 43.38±6.57 min; P>0.05), but both were significantly less than that in group C (group C: 49.12±7.46 min; P<0.05). The total procedural time did not differ significantly between group A and group B (70.05±15.35 vs. 73.70±15.12 min; P>0.05), nor were there significant differences in the dose of propofol between them (group A vs. group B: 357.11±115.86 vs. 369.55±133.86 mg; P>0.05). In all, 22 anesthetic complications and 21 endoscopic complications occurred without significant differences among the three groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: As a triaging or a screening tool, diagnostic EUS gives added benefit to therapeutic ERCP. EUS and ERCP in a tandem approach are safe and feasible in patients with suspected distal obstructive jaundice.
RCT Entities:
GOALS: To examine the benefits and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in tandem for distal obstructive jaundice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From September 2007 to August 2012, patients with suspected distal obstructive jaundice were randomized to single-session EUS-ERCP (group A), EUS, and ERCP in different sessions (group B), and an ERCP-only procedure (group C). Data were prospectively collected on the following parameters: ERCP-avoided, duration of procedure, the dose of propofol, complications, and diagnostic yield. RESULTS: A total of 180 patients were divided randomly into 60 patients in group A, 60 in group B, and 60 in group C. A total of four therapeutic ERCP were canceled after EUS. The ERCP procedural time in group A was shorter, although not significantly different from that in group B (group A vs. group B: 41.24±7.57 vs. 43.38±6.57 min; P>0.05), but both were significantly less than that in group C (group C: 49.12±7.46 min; P<0.05). The total procedural time did not differ significantly between group A and group B (70.05±15.35 vs. 73.70±15.12 min; P>0.05), nor were there significant differences in the dose of propofol between them (group A vs. group B: 357.11±115.86 vs. 369.55±133.86 mg; P>0.05). In all, 22 anesthetic complications and 21 endoscopic complications occurred without significant differences among the three groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: As a triaging or a screening tool, diagnostic EUS gives added benefit to therapeutic ERCP. EUS and ERCP in a tandem approach are safe and feasible in patients with suspected distal obstructive jaundice.