| Literature DB >> 32490166 |
Carlos Robles-Medranda1, Miguel Soria-Alcívar1, Roberto Oleas1, Jorge Baquerizo-Burgos1, Miguel Puga-Tejada1, Manuel Valero1, Hannah Pitanga-Lukashok1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Digital, per-oral cholangioscopy (POCS) allows diagnosis of biliary ducts disorders and treatment for complicated stones. We aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of digital POCS systems for stricture lesions and the factors precluding complete biliary stone clearance. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of 265 consecutive patients referred for POCS between December 2016 and July 2018. We first analyzed the diagnostic accuracy of digital POCS for malignant and benign stricture lesions in 147 patients. Then, we analyzed the factors associated with complete or partial biliary stone clearance achieved with electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) delivered via POCS in 118 patients. Results In the diagnostic group, digital POCS achieved 91 % visual-impression sensitivity, 99 % specificity, 99 % positive and 91 % negative predictive values, and 63.64 positive and 0.09 negative likelihood ratios for malignancy diagnosis. In the therapeutic group, complete biliary stone clearance was achieved by EHL in 94.9 % patients; the mean stone size was 20 mm (10-40 mm). In multivariable analyses, a stone size > 20 mm (OR: 1.020, P < 0.001) and the number of stones ≥ 3 (OR: 1.276, P < 001) was associated with partial biliary stone clearance. Adverse events were reported in 3.3 % patients; no deaths were reported 30 days after the procedure. Conclusions Digital POCS has excellent diagnostic efficacy for biliary lesions. EHL via POCS is effective for complicated biliary stone clearance. Stone size (> 20 mm) and the number of stones (≥ 3) are associated with partial biliary stone clearance.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32490166 PMCID: PMC7247902 DOI: 10.1055/a-1153-8950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Patient demographics.
| (n = 265) | |
| Age (years), median (range) | 61.7 (19–93) |
| Sex, female (No., %) | 151 (57.0) |
| Purpose of POCS, No. (%) | |
| Diagnostic | 147 (55.5) |
| Therapeutic | 118 (44.5) |
| Previous ERCP procedure, No. (%) | |
0 | 85 (32.1) |
1 | 134 (50.6) |
2 | 32 (12.1) |
≥ 3 | 14 (5.3) |
POCS, per-oral cholangioscopy; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
Fig. 1 Patient recruitment and study flow.
Characteristics of the diagnostic POCS cohort.
| (n = 147) | |
| Age (years), median (range) | 64 (18–93) |
| Sex, female (%) | 83 (56.5) |
| Previous ERCP procedures, no. (%) | |
0 | 64 (43.5) |
1 | 61 (41.5) |
2 | 15 (10.2) |
≥ 3 | 7 (4.8) |
| POCS indications, No. (%) | |
Undetermined bile duct stenosis | 80 (54.4) |
Suspicion of biliary tumor | 62 (42.2) |
Gallbladder tumor | 2 (1.4) |
Cyst duct lesion | 2 (1.4) |
Post-liver transplantation hepatic duct stricture | 1 (0.6) |
| Endoscopic classification of lesions, no. (%) | |
| Neoplastic lesions (n = 76) | |
Type 1 “flat pattern” | 15/76 (19.7) |
Type 2 “polypoid pattern” | 29/76 (38.1) |
Type 3 “ulcerated pattern” | 28/76 (36.8) |
Type 4 “honeycomb pattern” | 4/76 (5.4) |
| Non-neoplastic lesions (n = 71) | |
Type 1 “villous pattern” | 33/71 (46.5) |
Type 2 “polypoid pattern” | 17/71 (24.0) |
Type 3 “inflammatory pattern” | 21/71 (29.5) |
| Location of the lesions, no. (%) | |
Common bile duct | 98 (66.7) |
Common hepatic duct | 24 (16.3) |
Hepatic hilum | 13 (8.8) |
Cystic duct | 5 (3.4) |
Gallbladder | 3 (2.0) |
Left intrahepatic duct | 2 (1.4) |
Celiac ganglion | 2 (1.4) |
| POCS biopsy diagnosis, no. (%) | |
Performed | 145 (98.6) |
Not performed
| 2 (1.4) |
Biopsy samples per suspected lesion, median (range) | 3 (3–7) |
Tissue specimen adequate for histological examination, no. (%) | 138/147 (93.9) |
| Histopathological diagnosis, no. (%) | |
Adenocarcinoma | 12/138 (8.7) |
Adenoma | 5/138 (3.6) |
Metastatic carcinoma | 1/138 (0.7) |
Cholangiocarcinoma | 43/138 (31.2) |
Chronic cholangitis | 1/138 (0.7) |
Sclerosing cholangitis | 2/138 (1.5) |
Fibroma | 1/138 (0.7) |
Hepatocarcinoma | 1/138 (0.7) |
Chronic lymphadenitis | 1/138 (0.7) |
Acute inflammation | 4/138 (2.9) |
Chronic inflammation | 60/138 (43.5) |
Mycotic inflammation | 3/138 (2.2) |
Parasitic inflammation | 4/138 (2.9) |
| Final diagnosis according to follow-up or surgical specimen, no. (%) | |
Non-neoplastic lesions | 77/147 (52.3 %) |
Neoplastic lesions | 70/147 (47.7 %) |
| Adverse events, no. (%) | |
Post-procedural cholangitis | 1/147 (0.7) |
Acute cholecystitis | 1/147 (0.7) |
Mild acute pancreatitis | 5/147 (3.4) |
POCS, per-oral cholangioscopy
Corresponded to external compression
Fig. 2 Representative lesions in the diagnostic group. a Ulcerated and infiltrative lesion with irregular vascularity suggestive of cholangiocarcinoma. b Lesion with a ulcero-infiltrative pattern, suggestive of cholangiocarcinoma. c Primary sclerosing cholangitis during POCS.
Overall diagnostic POCS accuracy.
| Malignancy diagnosis | % | 95 % CI |
| Disease prevalence | 52 | 44–61 |
| Sensitivity | 91 | 82–96 |
| Specificity | 99 | 92–100 |
| Positive predictive value | 99 | 92–100 |
| Negative predictive value | 91 | 82–96 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | 63.64 | 9.08–446.0 |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.09 | 0.05–0.19 |
POCS, per-oral cholangioscopy
Therapeutic group 1 patient characteristics.
| (n = 118) | |
| Age (years), median (range) | 59.5 (19–92) |
| Sex, Female (%) | 68 (57.6) |
| Indication of therapeutic POCS, no. (%) | |
Choledocholithiasis | 106 (89.8) |
Choledocholithiasis plus stenosis of the bile duct post-cholecystectomy | 1 (0.8) |
Choledocholithiasis plus tumor lesion | 11 (9.3 %) |
| Previous ERCP procedure, No. (%) | |
0 | 21 (17.8) |
1 | 73 (61.9) |
2 | 17 (14.4) |
≥ 3 | 7 (5.9) |
| Stone location in bile duct assessed by POCS, no. (%) | |
Cystic duct | 3 (2.5) |
Common bile duct | 104 (88.1) |
Common hepatic duct | 9 (7.6) |
Left hepatic duct | 2 (1.7) |
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; POCS, per-oral cholangioscopy
POCS, lithotripsy.
Fig. 3 Cholangioscopy laser lithotripsy. a ERCP showing a dilated common bile duct with large stones. b Cholangioscopic visualization of biliary stones. c Stone fragments after laser lithotripsy. d Fluoroscopic evaluation of the common bile duct after complete stone removal.
Procedure characteristics of EHL via POCS.
| (n = 118) | |
| No. of stones, no. (%) | |
1 | 67 (56.8) |
2 | 17 (14.4) |
≥ 3 | 34 (28.8) |
| Size of stones (mm), median (range) | 20 (10.0–40.0) |
| Devices used during stone therapy, no. (%) | |
Balloon | 116 (98.3) |
Balloon and retrieval basket | 2 (1.7) |
| Lithotripsy session, no. (%) | |
1 | 84 (71.2) |
2 | 25 (21.2) |
≥ 3 | 9 (7.6) |
Stent permanence before POCS (months), median (range) | 3 (0.0–22.0) |
| Size of distal common bile duct, no. (%) | |
< 15 mm | 49 (41.5) |
> 15 mm | 69 (58.5) |
| Additional procedures, no. (%) | |
None | 80 (67.7) |
Extension of sphincterotomy | 16 (13.5) |
Balloon dilation | 16 (13.5) |
Extension of sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation | 6 (5.3) |
Complete biliary stone clearance by total stone removal, no. (%) | 112 (94.9) |
| Adverse events, no. (%) | |
None | 116 (98.3) |
Mild acute pancreatitis | 1 (0.8) |
Acute cholangitis | 1 (0.8) |
EHL, electrohydraulic lithotripsy; POCS, per-oral cholangioscopy
Univariable and multivariable analyses of factors associated with lithotripsy and partial biliary stone clearance.
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age (years) | 1.002 | (0.959–1.045) | 0.906 | – | – | – |
| Sex (female) | 1.382 | (0.246–7.759) | 0.699 | – | – | – |
| Presence of tumor lesions | 0.678 | (0.012–1.277) | 0.174 | – | – | – |
| Previous ERCP | 2.447 | (0.332–13.506) | 0.321 | – | – | – |
| No. of stones ( ≥ 3) | 4.116 | (2.388–7.515) | < 0.001 | 1.276 | (1.176–1.385) | < 0.001 |
| Stone size (20 mm) | 1.116 | (1.036–1.209) | 0.004 | 1.020 | (1.008–1.032) | < 0.001 |
| No. of lithotripsy sessions | 0.175 | (0.009–3.194) | 0.239 | – | – | – |
| Permanence of stent (months) | 1.100 | (0.857–1.559) | 0.537 | – | – | – |
| Distal common bile duct caliber ( > 15 mm) | 0.695 | (0.121–3.933) | 0.677 | – | – | – |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography