These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: EUS versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones: a prospective randomized trial.
    Author: Karakan T, Cindoruk M, Alagozlu H, Ergun M, Dumlu S, Unal S.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2009 Feb; 69(2):244-52. PubMed ID: 19019364.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Factors affecting diagnostic accuracy and comparison of patients in the follow-up period for negative outcomes are not thoroughly investigated in a randomized trial. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare diagnostic accuracy, complications, and number of interventions. DESIGN: Prospective, unicentric, single-blind, randomized study. SETTING: Single tertiary referral university hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty patients with intermediate risk for common bile duct (CBD) stones were randomized to either an EUS-first, endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-second (n = 60) versus an ERC-only (n = 60) procedure. INTERVENTIONS: EUS, ERC, sphincterotomy, and balloon sweeping of CBD when needed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity of EUS versus ERC, factors affecting diagnostic capability, complications, total number of endoscopic procedures. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of ERC were 75% (95% CI, 42%-93%) and 100% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of EUS were 91% (95% CI, 59%-99%) and 100% (95% CI, 95%-100%), respectively. EUS is more sensitive than ERC in detecting stones smaller than 4 mm (90% vs 23%, P < .01). Although not significant, there was a trend for an increased number of endoscopic procedures in the ERC group compared with the EUS group (98 vs 83). The post-ERC pancreatitis rate was 6 in 120 (5%) in all study patients, and the post-ERC pancreatitis rate in patients with an undilated CBD was 5 of 53 (9.43%). The independent factors for post-ERC pancreatitis are undilated CBD (risk ratio [RR] 6.320; 95% CI, 1.703-11.524, P = .009), allocation into the ERC group (RR 2.107; 95% CI, 1.330-3.339, P = .02), female sex (RR 1.803; 95% CI, 1.155-2.813, P = .03), and age less than 40 years (RR 1.888; 95% CI, 1.245-2.863, P = .01). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed higher rate of negative outcome in the ERC group than in the EUS group (P = .049, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: The EUS-first approach is not associated with further risk for subsequent endoscopic procedures. Patients with an undilated CBD should be investigated by the EUS-first approach to prevent post-ERC pancreatitis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]