BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Due to its lower morbidity, it has been suggested that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) might replace endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in the management of extrahepatic cholestasis of unknown origin. The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and ERC in the management of cholestasis of unknown origin, taking into account the patient's general status and the necessity of endoscopic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with cholestasis of unknown origin were studied prospectively. EUS followed by ERC was carried out on a blinded basis by two endoscopists; diagnostic and therapeutic suggestions were made after either examination. During the ERC procedure and before withdrawing the tube, the endoscopist provided the final conclusions and carried out appropriate endoscopic treatment. RESULTS: A correct diagnosis was obtained with EUS and ERC in 94% and in 92% of cases, respectively (not significant). After EUS, diagnostic ERC was necessary for diagnosis and therapy in 24% and 58% of cases, respectively. After ERC, EUS was requested in 41% of cases. The higher the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, the less it was necessary to perform a complementary investigation. In ASA grade 1 patients, endoscopic therapy was suggested in 38% of cases after EUS and in 33% after ERC (not significant); in ASA grade 3 patients, it was suggested in 93% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic sensitivities of EUS and ERC are similar for extrahepatic cholestasis. ERC is first indicated in poor candidates for surgery, since endoscopic therapy is frequently required. In good candidates for surgery, EUS should be carried out first in order to stage a tumor or identify choledocholithiasis.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Due to its lower morbidity, it has been suggested that endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) might replace endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) in the management of extrahepatic cholestasis of unknown origin. The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS and ERC in the management of cholestasis of unknown origin, taking into account the patient's general status and the necessity of endoscopic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-eight patients with cholestasis of unknown origin were studied prospectively. EUS followed by ERC was carried out on a blinded basis by two endoscopists; diagnostic and therapeutic suggestions were made after either examination. During the ERC procedure and before withdrawing the tube, the endoscopist provided the final conclusions and carried out appropriate endoscopic treatment. RESULTS: A correct diagnosis was obtained with EUS and ERC in 94% and in 92% of cases, respectively (not significant). After EUS, diagnostic ERC was necessary for diagnosis and therapy in 24% and 58% of cases, respectively. After ERC, EUS was requested in 41% of cases. The higher the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, the less it was necessary to perform a complementary investigation. In ASA grade 1 patients, endoscopic therapy was suggested in 38% of cases after EUS and in 33% after ERC (not significant); in ASA grade 3 patients, it was suggested in 93% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic sensitivities of EUS and ERC are similar for extrahepatic cholestasis. ERC is first indicated in poor candidates for surgery, since endoscopic therapy is frequently required. In good candidates for surgery, EUS should be carried out first in order to stage a tumor or identify choledocholithiasis.
Authors: José María Huguet; Miriam Lobo; José Mir Labrador; Carlos Boix; Cecilia Albert; Luis Ferrer-Barceló; Ana B Durá; Patricia Suárez; Isabel Iranzo; Mireia Gil-Raga; Celia Baez de Burgos; Javier Sempere Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 1.337