BACKGROUND: The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to diagnose idiopathic acute pancreatitis has been demonstrated but that of magnetic-resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of our study was to prospectively compare the results of EUS and MRCP to diagnose idiopathic acute pancreatitis when performed later after an acute attack. METHODS: All patients admitted to our center for acute pancreatitis over a 2-year period received first-line investigations that included medical history, standard biological measurements, abdominal ultrasound, and computerized tomography. If no etiology was found, second-line investigations were scheduled at 2 months (or more if there was severe pancreatitis), which included clinical examinations, biological parameters, EUS, and MRCP. RESULTS: A total of 128 consecutive patients were included (male: 80, mean age: 55.3 years). After first-line investigations, 41 patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis underwent second-line investigations and were followed-up (38 patients had both EUS and MRCP). EUS and/or MRCP led to recognize a possible etiology of pancreatitis in 19 patients (50 %). The diagnostic yield for EUS was higher than for MRCP (29 vs. 10.5 %). EUS more accurately detected biliary stones whereas MRCP identified pancreatic duct abnormalities, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas or chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of EUS and MRCP, when performed later after idiopathic acute pancreatitis, revealed 50 % of etiologies. The association of these two procedures and the subsequent follow-up reduced the rate of idiopathic pancreatitis by ~66 %.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to diagnose idiopathic acute pancreatitis has been demonstrated but that of magnetic-resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of our study was to prospectively compare the results of EUS and MRCP to diagnose idiopathic acute pancreatitis when performed later after an acute attack. METHODS: All patients admitted to our center for acute pancreatitis over a 2-year period received first-line investigations that included medical history, standard biological measurements, abdominal ultrasound, and computerized tomography. If no etiology was found, second-line investigations were scheduled at 2 months (or more if there was severe pancreatitis), which included clinical examinations, biological parameters, EUS, and MRCP. RESULTS: A total of 128 consecutive patients were included (male: 80, mean age: 55.3 years). After first-line investigations, 41 patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis underwent second-line investigations and were followed-up (38 patients had both EUS and MRCP). EUS and/or MRCP led to recognize a possible etiology of pancreatitis in 19 patients (50 %). The diagnostic yield for EUS was higher than for MRCP (29 vs. 10.5 %). EUS more accurately detected biliary stones whereas MRCP identified pancreatic duct abnormalities, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas or chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of EUS and MRCP, when performed later after idiopathic acute pancreatitis, revealed 50 % of etiologies. The association of these two procedures and the subsequent follow-up reduced the rate of idiopathic pancreatitis by ~66 %.
Authors: V de Lédinghen; R Lecesne; J M Raymond; V Gense; M Amouretti; J Drouillard; P Couzigou; C Silvain Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Audrey Arlix; Barbara Bournet; Philippe Otal; Guillaume Canevet; Aldine Thevenot; Sylvain Kirzin; Nicolas Carrere; Bertrand Suc; Jacques Moreau; Jean Escourrou; Louis Buscail Journal: Pancreas Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Thomas Rösch; Alexander Meining; Silke Frühmorgen; Christian Zillinger; Volker Schusdziarra; Karin Hellerhoff; Meinhard Classen; Hermann Helmberger Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Jussi Nikkola; Irina Rinta-Kiikka; Sari Räty; Johanna Laukkarinen; Riitta Lappalainen-Lehto; Satu Järvinen; Hanna Seppänen; Isto Nordback; Juhani Sand Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Mohammad Taghi Safari; Mohammad Bager Miri; Shahram Ebadi; Shabnam Shahrokh; Amir Houshang Mohammad Alizadeh Journal: Clin Med Insights Gastroenterol Date: 2016-06-20
Authors: Devica S Umans; Hester C Timmerhuis; Nora D Hallensleben; Stefan A Bouwense; Marie-Paule Gf Anten; Abha Bhalla; Rina A Bijlsma; Marja A Boermeester; Menno A Brink; Lieke Hol; Marco J Bruno; Wouter L Curvers; Hendrik M van Dullemen; Brechje C van Eijck; G Willemien Erkelens; Paul Fockens; Erwin J M van Geenen; Wouter L Hazen; Chantal V Hoge; Akin Inderson; Liesbeth M Kager; Sjoerd D Kuiken; Lars E Perk; Jan-Werner Poley; Rutger Quispel; Tessa Eh Römkens; Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Adriaan Citl Tan; Annemieke Y Thijssen; Niels G Venneman; Frank P Vleggaar; Annet McJ Voorburg; Roy Lj van Wanrooij; Ben J Witteman; Robert C Verdonk; Marc G Besselink; Jeanin E van Hooft Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692