The roles of magnetic resonance and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP and ERCP) in the diagnosis of patients with suspected sclerosing cholangitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Background and study aims: The optimal approach for diagnosing sclerosing cholangitis remains unclear in the face of competing imaging technologies. We aimed to determine the most cost-effective strategy.

Patients and methods: A decision model compared three approaches in the work-up of patients with suspected sclerosing cholangitis; all included an initial test, with, if unsuccessful, performance of a second cholangiographic method. They were magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), termed ”MRCP_ERCP”, ERCP and MRCP (”ERCP_MRCP”), or ERCP and a repeat ERCP (”ERCP_ERCP”). The implications of true and false positive and negative results with regard to costs and procedural complications were considered, including that of a liver biopsy, if indicated as a result of a negative work-up in the face of persistent clinical suspicion. The unit of effectiveness adopted was that of a correct diagnosis. Probability assumptions were derived from published literature, while cost estimates were derived from time-motion microanalyses or a national database, and expressed in Canadian dollars at 2004 values. Sensitivity analyses, including clinically relevant threshold analyses, were carried out.

Results: The average cost-effectiveness ratios were $ 414 for MRCP_ERCP, $ 1101 for ERCP_MRCP and $ 1123 for ERCP_ERCP, per correct diagnosis. The ERCP_MRCP strategy was dominated (more expensive and less effective) by MRCP_ERCP, while ERCP_ERCP was more effective and more costly than MRCP_ERCP, at $ 289 292 per additional correct diagnosis. Sensitivity and threshold analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings.

Conclusions: Based on the model assumptions, a strategy of initial MRCP, followed, if negative, by ERCP is currently the most cost-effective approach to the work-up of patients with suspected sclerosing cholangitis.

References

• 1 Lee Y, Kaplan M. Primary sclerosing cholangitis.  N Engl J Med. 1995;  332 924-933
• 2 Loperfido S. et al . Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 1-10
• 3 Fulcher A S. et al . Primary sclerosing cholangitis: evaluation with MR cholangiography - a case-control study.  Radiology. 2000;  215 71-80
• 4 Crott R. et al . The cost of upper gastroduodenal endoscopy: an activity-based approach.  Can J Gastroenterol. 2002;  16 473-482
• 5 Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) .Accessed at: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/splash.html. April, 2005
• 6 Canadian MIS Database .Hospital Financial Performance Indicators 1999 - 2000 to 2001 - 2002. CIHI 2004: 119 pages
• 7 CPI statistics - Medical care. U.S. Department of Labor Accessed at: http://data.bls.gov/servklet/SurveyOutputServlet. April, 2005
• 8 Vandervoort J. et al . Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 652-656
• 9 Rosch T. et al . A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 870-876
• 10 Fayad L M, Kowalski T, Mitchell D G. MR cholangiopancreatography: evaluation of common pancreatic diseases.  Radiol Clin N Am. 2003;  41 97-114
• 11 van den Hazel S J. et al . Prospective risk assessment of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Dutch PSC Study Group.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 779-782
• 12 Christensen M. et al . Complications of ERCP: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 721-731
• 13 Masci E. et al . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 417-423
• 14 Freeman M L. et al . Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 425-434
• 15 Pasanen P. et al . Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in jaundiced and cholestatic patients.  Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1992;  81 28-31
• 16 Textor H J. et al . Three-dimensional magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with respiratory triggering in the diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis: comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 984-990
• 17 Angulo P. et al . Magnetic resonance cholangiography in patients with biliary disease: its role in primary sclerosing cholangitis.  J Hepatol. 2000;  33 520-527
• 18 Ernst O. et al . MR cholangiography in primary sclerosing cholangitis.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;  171 1027-1030
• 19 Janes C H, Lindor K D. Outcome of patients hospitalized for complications after outpatient liver biopsy.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 96-98
• 20 Pasha T. et al . Cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided liver biopsy.  Hepatology. 1998;  27 1220-1226
• 21 Garcia-Tsao G, Boyer J L. Outpatient liver biopsy: how safe is it?.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 150-153
• 22 McGill D B. et al . A 21-year experience with major hemorrhage after percutaneous liver biopsy.  Gastroenterology. 1990;  99 1396-1400
• 23 Talwalkar J A. et al . Cost-minimization analysis of MRC versus ERCP for the diagnosis of primary sclerosing cholangitis.  Hepatology. 2004;  40 39-45
• 24 Mesenas S. et al . Duodenal EUS to identify thickening of the extrahepatic biliary tree wall in primary sclerosing cholangitis.  Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2006;  63 403-408