Cargando…

Efficacy of the Endoscopic Ultrasound-first Approach in Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stone to Avoid Unnecessary Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a safe and accurate examination for evaluating the presence of common bile duct stones (CBDSs). The EUS-first approach, where EUS is performed before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients suspected of having CBDSs, may help reduc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maruta, Akinori, Iwashita, Takuji, Uemura, Shinya, Yoshida, Kensaku, Yasuda, Ichiro, Shimizu, Masahito
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Japanese Society of Internal Medicine 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30799342
http://dx.doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.2047-18
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a safe and accurate examination for evaluating the presence of common bile duct stones (CBDSs). The EUS-first approach, where EUS is performed before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients suspected of having CBDSs, may help reduce the risk of ERCP-related adverse events and save manpower by avoiding unnecessary ERCP. To evaluate the efficacy of the EUS-first approach in patients with suspected CBDSs. METHODS: Between April 2012 and March 2016, 104 patients who underwent the EUS-first approach for suspected CBDSs were retrospectively evaluated. The relevant outcomes were the short- and long-term adverse event rates and the ERCP avoidance rate. RESULTS: EUS findings were positive for CBDSs in 52 patients, showed sludge formation or possible CBDSs in 4 patients, and were negative for CBDSs in 42 patients (but positive for other diseases in 6). Sixty-two patients (62/104, 59.6%) underwent ERCP, and proper treatments were successfully performed in all but 1 who underwent only cholangiography. In the remaining 42 patients (42/104, 40.4%), ERCP was omitted based on the EUS findings. Early adverse events were recognized in 0% of the EUS-only group and 8 patients (12.9%) in the EUS+ERCP group (p=0.02). Regarding late adverse events, recurrent CBDSs occurred in 1 patient (2.3%) in the EUS-only group and 2 (3.2%) in the EUS+ERCP group (p=1.0). CONCLUSION: The EUS-first approach in patients with suspected CBDSs was useful for reducing early adverse events associated with ERCP without increasing the late adverse event rate, as EUS enabled the avoidance of unnecessary ERCP.