Megan A Adams1, Amy E Hosmer1, Erik J Wamsteker1, Michelle A Anderson1, Grace H Elta1, Nisa M Kubiliun2, Richard S Kwon1, Cyrus R Piraka3, James M Scheiman1, Akbar K Waljee4, Hero K Hussain1, B Joseph Elmunzer5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 2. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines aim to stratify the likelihood of choledocholithiasis to guide the use of ERCP versus a lower-risk diagnostic study such as EUS, MRCP, or intraoperative cholangiography. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of existing guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis and to determine whether trends in laboratory parameters improve diagnostic accuracy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients presenting with suspected choledocholithiasis over a 6-year period. INTERVENTIONS: Assessment of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, its component variables, and laboratory trends in predicting choledocholithiasis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The presence of choledocholithiasis confirmed by EUS, MRCP, or ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 179 (35.9%) of the 498 eligible patients met ASGE high-probability criteria for choledocholithiasis on initial presentation. Of those, 99 patients (56.3%) had a stone/sludge on subsequent confirmatory test. Of patients not meeting high-probability criteria on presentation, 111 (34.8%) had a stone/sludge. The overall accuracy of the guidelines in detecting choledocholithiasis was 62.1% (47.4% sensitivity, 73% specificity) based on data available at presentation. The accuracy was unchanged when incorporating the second set of liver chemistries obtained after admission (63.2%), suggesting that laboratory trends do not improve performance. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, inconsistent timing of the second set of biochemical markers. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients, existing choledocholithiasis guidelines lacked diagnostic accuracy, likely resulting in overuse of ERCP. Incorporation of laboratory trends did not improve performance. Additional research focused on risk stratification is necessary to meet the goal of eliminating unnecessary diagnostic ERCP.
BACKGROUND: Existing guidelines aim to stratify the likelihood of choledocholithiasis to guide the use of ERCP versus a lower-risk diagnostic study such as EUS, MRCP, or intraoperative cholangiography. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of existing guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis and to determine whether trends in laboratory parameters improve diagnostic accuracy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care hospital. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients presenting with suspected choledocholithiasis over a 6-year period. INTERVENTIONS: Assessment of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, its component variables, and laboratory trends in predicting choledocholithiasis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The presence of choledocholithiasis confirmed by EUS, MRCP, or ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 179 (35.9%) of the 498 eligible patients met ASGE high-probability criteria for choledocholithiasis on initial presentation. Of those, 99 patients (56.3%) had a stone/sludge on subsequent confirmatory test. Of patients not meeting high-probability criteria on presentation, 111 (34.8%) had a stone/sludge. The overall accuracy of the guidelines in detecting choledocholithiasis was 62.1% (47.4% sensitivity, 73% specificity) based on data available at presentation. The accuracy was unchanged when incorporating the second set of liver chemistries obtained after admission (63.2%), suggesting that laboratory trends do not improve performance. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, inconsistent timing of the second set of biochemical markers. CONCLUSION: In our cohort of patients, existing choledocholithiasis guidelines lacked diagnostic accuracy, likely resulting in overuse of ERCP. Incorporation of laboratory trends did not improve performance. Additional research focused on risk stratification is necessary to meet the goal of eliminating unnecessary diagnostic ERCP.
Authors: Joseph Romagnuolo; Marc Bardou; Elham Rahme; Lawrence Joseph; Caroline Reinhold; Alan N Barkun Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-10-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michelle A Anderson; Laurel Fisher; Rajeev Jain; John A Evans; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Brooks D Cash; G Anton Decker; Dayna S Early; Robert D Fanelli; Deborah A Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Steven O Ikenberry; Terry L Jue; Khalid M Khan; Mary Lee Krinsky; Phyllis M Malpas; John T Maple; Ravi N Sharaf; Amandeep K Shergill; Jason A Dominitz Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Bobby V M Dasari; Chuan Jin Tan; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy; David J Martin; Gareth Kirk; Lloyd McKie; Tom Diamond; Mark A Taylor Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-09-03
Authors: Andrea Anderloni; Marco Ballarè; Michela Pagliarulo; Dario Conte; Marianna Galeazzi; Marco Orsello; Silvano Andorno; Mario Del Piano Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2013-12-28 Impact factor: 4.088
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
Authors: Moises Ilan Nevah Rubin; Nirav C Thosani; Rajasekhar Tanikella; David S Wolf; Michael B Fallon; Frank J Lukens Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 4.088
Authors: Chung Yao Yu; Nitzan Roth; Niraj Jani; Jaehoon Cho; Jacques Van Dam; Rick Selby; James Buxbaum Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Alejandro L Suarez; Nicolas T LaBarre; Peter B Cotton; K Mark Payne; Gregory A Coté; B Joseph Elmunzer Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-02-19 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Douglas S Fishman; Bruno P Chumpitazi; Isaac Raijman; Cynthia Man-Wai Tsai; E O'Brian Smith; Mark V Mazziotti; Mark A Gilger Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-06-10
Authors: Mauro Ariel Capparelli; Pablo Damian D Alessandro; Horacio Alberto Questa; Victor Hugo Ayarzabal; Maria Marcela Bailez; Marcelo Eugenio Barrenechea Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: Catarina Gouveia; Rui Loureiro; Rosa Ferreira; Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; António Alberto Santos; Maria Pia Costa Santos; Carolina Palmela; Marília Cravo Journal: GE Port J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-09-15
Authors: Ausra Aleknaite; Gintaras Simutis; Juozas Stanaitis; Jonas Valantinas; Kestutis Strupas Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 4.623