Download PDF
Endoscopy 2007; 39(4): 296-303
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966264
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Endoscopic ultrasound versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones: a randomized trial comparing two management strategies

M.  Polkowski1 , J.  Regula1 , A.  Tilszer1 , E.  Butruk1
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, and M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 18 August 2006

accepted after revision 4 December 2006

Publication Date:
11 April 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de M. Polkowski et al., pp. 296Endoscopy 2007; 39(04): 381-381
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306919

Background and study aims: Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) is being replaced by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in patients with suspected bile duct stones. The assumption that such an approach is advantageous, however, has never been tested in a randomized trial.

Patients and methods: 100 patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones were randomly allocated to EUS or ERC. Two patients in the ERC group were excluded; the remaining 98 patients received the allocated intervention and were entered into the analysis (EUS, 50 patients; ERC, 48 patients). Detected stones were removed endoscopically; patients without stones were followed for 1 year. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a negative outcome, related to either endoscopic procedures (complications) or to false-negative diagnosis of stones. Investigators assessing the negative outcomes were not blinded to group assignment. The secondary end point was the total number of endoscopic procedures (EUS and ERC) performed in each group to diagnose and treat stones.

Results: Bile duct stone prevalence was 28 % and 25 % in the EUS and ERC groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the EUS group, 71 endoscopic procedures were performed, and 63 in the ERC group (mean per patient, 1.42 ± 0.76, and 1.31 ± 0.55, respectively; P > 0.05). In the EUS group, these included 49 successful and one failed initial EUS, 15 ERCs for bile duct stone treatment, and six procedures required during follow-up. In the ERC group there were 36 successful and 12 failed initial ERCs, 13 repeat procedures (EUS or ERC) performed after failed or equivocal initial ERC, and two procedures during follow-up. Five patients in the EUS group (10 %, 95 % CI 4 - 22) and 19 patients in the ERC group (40 %, 95 % CI 27 - 54) experienced a negative outcome (P < 0.001). No difference was observed when only moderate to severe complications were considered (6 %, 95 % CI 1 - 17, and 10 %, 95 % CI 4 - 23, respectively).

Conclusions: In patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones, the management strategy based on EUS (with selective ERC in patients with confirmed stones) is safer and not associated with an excess of endoscopic procedures compared with a strategy based on ERC alone.

References

  • 1 Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Levy P. et al . Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography.  Gastroenterology. 1994;  106 1062-1067
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Palazzo L, Girollet P P, Salmeron M. et al . Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: comparison with surgical exploration and ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  42 225-231
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Shim C S, Joo J H, Park C W. et al . Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 428-432
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P. et al . Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis.  Lancet. 1996;  347 75-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Aubertin J M, Levoir D, Bouillot J L. et al . Endoscopic ultrasonography immediately prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a prospective evaluation.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 667-673
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Norton S A, Alderson D. Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the detection of bile duct stones.  Br J Surg. 1997;  84 1366-1369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sugiyama M, Atomi Y. Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: a prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 143-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Montariol T, Msika S, Charlier A. et al . Diagnosis of asymptomatic common bile duct stones: preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography versus intraoperative cholangiography - a multicenter, prospective controlled study. French Associations for Surgical Research.  Surgery. 1998;  124 6-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Canto M I, Chak A, Stellato T. et al . Endoscopic ultrasonography versus cholangiography for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 439-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Polkowski M, Palucki J, Regula J. et al . Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: a prospective blinded study in non-jaundiced patients.  Gut. 1999;  45 744-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kohut M, Nowak A, Nowakowska-Dulawa E. et al . Endosonography with linear array instead of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography as the diagnostic tool in patients with moderate suspicion of common bile duct stones.  World J Gastroenterol. 2003;  9 612-614
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Buscarini E, Tansini P, Vallisa D. et al . EUS for suspected choledocholithiasis: do benefits outweigh costs? A prospective, controlled study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 510-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sahai A V, Mauldin P D, Marsi V. et al . Bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a decision analysis to assess the roles of intraoperative cholangiography, EUS, and ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 334-343
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Anonymous . NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.  NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2002;  19 1-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Barkun A N, Barkun J S, Fried G M. et al . Useful predictors of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. McGill Gallstone Treatment Group.  Ann Surg. 1994;  220 32-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Barkun A N. Endoscopy and gallstones. In: Cotton PB, Tytgat GN, Williams CB (eds). Annual of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.  London: Current Science. Limited;  1995 89-99
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Cotton P B, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al . Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cotton P B. Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: struggling towards definitions.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 514-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Freeman M L, Nelson D B, Sherman S. et al . Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cavallini G, Tittobello A, Frulloni L. et al . Gabexate for the prevention of pancreatic damage related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 919-923
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Testoni P A, Bagnolo F. Pain at 24 hours associated with amylase levels greater than 5 times the upper normal limit as the most reliable indicator of post-ERCP pancreatitis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 33-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al . Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Freeman M L, Di Sario J A, Nelson D B. et al . Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 425-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Cheng C L, Sherman S, Watkins J L. et al . Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Andriulli A, Leandro G, Niro G. et al . Pharmacologic treatment can prevent pancreatic injury after ERCP: a meta-analysis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I. et al . Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: patient-related and operative risk factors.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 286-292
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Rabenstein T, Hahn E G. Post-ERCP pancreatitis: new momentum.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 325-329
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Napoleon B, Dumortier J, Keriven-Souquet O. et al . Do normal findings at biliary endoscopic ultrasonography obviate the need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspicion of common bile duct stone? A prospective follow-up study of 238 patients.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 411-415
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar

M. Polkowski, MD

Department of Gastroenterology,

Medical Center for Postgraduate Education,

M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology

Roentgena 5

02-781 Warsaw

Poland

Fax: +48 22 5463035

Email: polek@coi.waw.pl

      >