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

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.

Helical computed tomographic cholangiography versus endosonography for suspected bile duct stones: a prospective blinded study in non-jaundiced patients

BACKGROUND

Helical computed tomography performed after intravenous administration of a cholangiographic contrast material (HCT-cholangiography) may be useful for detecting bile duct stones in non-jaundiced patients. However, this method has never been compared with other non-invasive biliary imaging tests.

AIMS

To compare prospectively HCT-cholangiography and endosonography (EUS) in a group of non-jaundiced patients with suspected bile duct stones.

METHODS

Fifty two subjects underwent both HCT-cholangiography and EUS. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), with or without instrumental bile duct exploration, served as a reference method, and was successful in all but two patients.

RESULTS

Thirty four patients (68%) were found to have choledocholithiasis at ERCP. The sensitivity for HCT-cholangiography in stone detection was 85%, specificity 88%, and accuracy 86%. For EUS the sensitivity was 91%, specificity 100%, and accuracy 94%. The differences were not significant. No serious complications occurred with either method.

CONCLUSIONS

HCT-cholangiography and EUS are safe and comparably accurate methods for detecting bile duct stones in non-jaundiced patients.