Intermediate Likelihood of Choledocholithiasis: Do All Need EUS or MRCP?

Abstract

Background Recently updated guidelines for choledocholithiasis stratify suspected patients into high, intermediate, and low likelihood, with the aim to reduce risk of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. This approach has increased proportion of patients in intermediate likelihood making it heterogenous. We aim to substratify intermediate group so that diagnostic tests (endoscopic ultrasound/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) are judicially used.

Methods This is a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data. We used subset of patients who met intermediate likelihood of American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) criteria from previously published data (PMID:32106321) as derivation cohort. Binominal logistic regression analysis was used to define independent predictors of choledocholithiasis. A composite score was derived by allotting 1 point for presence of each independent predictor. The diagnostic performance of a composite score of ≥ 1 was evaluated in validation cohort.

Results A total of 678 (mean age [standard deviation]: 47.0 [15.9] years; 48.1% men) and 162 (mean age 47.8 [14.8] years; 47.4% men) patients in ASGE intermediate-likelihood group were included as derivation cohort and validation cohort, respectively. Binominal logistic regression analysis showed that male gender (p = 0.024; odds ratio [OR] = 1.92), raised bilirubin (p = 0.001; OR = 2.40), and acute calculus cholecystitis (p = 0.010; OR = 2.04) were independent predictors for choledocholithiasis. A composite score was derived by allotting 1 point for presence of independent predictors Using ≥ 1 as cutoff, sensitivity and specificity for detection of choledocholithiasis were 80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.2–88.9) and 36.2% (95% CI: 32.2–40.0), respectively, in derivation cohort. Applying composite score in independent validation cohort showed sensitivity and specificity of 73.3% (95% CI: 44.9–92.2) and 40.1% (95% CI: 30.1–48.5), respectively.

Conclusion Substratification of intermediate-likelihood group of ASGE criteria is feasible. It may be useful in deciding in whom confirmatory tests should be performed with priority and in whom watchful waiting may be sufficient.

Keywords

intermediate likelihood - choledocholithiasis - predictors - endoscopic ultrasound - magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography

Publication History

Article published online:
17 April 2021

• References

• 1 Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89 (06) 1075-1105.e15
• 2 Jagtap N, Hs Y, Tandan M. et al. Clinical utility of ESGE and ASGE guidelines for prediction of suspected choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 2020; 52 (07) 569-573
• 3 Chandran A, Rashtak S, Patil P. et al. Comparing diagnostic accuracy of current practice guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis: outcomes from a large healthcare system comprising both academic and community settings. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; S0016-5107(20)34939-7
• 4 Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71 (01) 1-9
• 5 Chen H, Jorissen R, Walcott J. et al. Incidence and predictors of common bile duct stones in patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg. 2019
• 6 Chisholm PR, Patel AH, Law RJ. et al. Preoperative predictors of choledocholithiasis in patients presenting with acute calculous cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89 (05) 977-983.
• 7 He H, Tan C, Wu J. et al. Accuracy of ASGE high-risk criteria in evaluation of patients with suspected common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86 (03) 525-532
• 8 Tse F, Yuan Y. Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (05) CD009779).
• 9 Meeralam Y, Al-Shammari K, Yaghoobi M. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS compared with MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in head-to-head studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86 (06) 986-993
• 10 Chen YI, Martel M, Barkun AN. Choledocholithiasis: should EUS replace MRCP in patients at intermediate risk?. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86 (06) 994-996
• 11 Giljaca V, Gurusamy KS, Takwoingi Y. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (02) CD011549
• 12 Rubin MI, Thosani NC, Tanikella R, Wolf DS, Fallon MB, Lukens FJ. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for suspected choledocholithiasis: testing the current guidelines. Dig Liver Dis 2013; 45 (09) 744-749
• 13 Adams MA, Hosmer AE, Wamsteker EJ. et al. Predicting the likelihood of a persistent bile duct stone in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis: accuracy of existing guidelines and the impact of laboratory trends. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82 (01) 88-93
• 14 Adolfsson J. Watchful waiting and active surveillance: the current position. BJU Int 2008; 102 (01) 10-14
• 15 Rawlinson J. The vanishing skill of watchful waiting. Br J Gen Pract 2017; 67 (656) 108