Download PDF
Endoscopy 2004; 36(6): 527-534
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-814408
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Prediction of Therapy in Primary Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

T.  Nathan1 , J.  Kjeldsen2 , O.  B.  Schaffalitzky de Muckadell2
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
  • 2Department of Gastroenterology S, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Further Information

Publication History

Submitted 31 March 2003

Accepted after Revision 21 January 2004

Publication Date:
17 June 2004 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: It seems rational to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) if the probability of endoscopic therapy is high, but to carry out magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) first if this probability is moderate or low. The aim of the present study was to develop a model describing the probability of endoscopic therapy in patients without previous biliary imaging. Patients and Methods: The development of the model was based on stepwise multiple logistic regression applied to 2470 prospectively registered first-time ERCP procedures. The model was evaluated by application to 442 prospectively registered first-time ERCP procedures entered in the database in the following 2 years. Results: Predictors selected were: age, gender, p-amylase ≥ 400 U/l, ln(s-bilirubin), ln(s-alkaline phosphatase), common bile duct (CBD) stone seen on transabdominal ultrasonography, gallbladder stone seen on transabdominal ultrasonography, interaction of dilated bile ducts seen on transabdominal ultrasonography with ln(s-bilirubin), and interaction between age and male gender. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.875 and there was good fit of the model. A test with a probability cutoff value of 80 % had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 92.8 %. Specificity was 87.1 % and, using this test, 52.4 % of patients would have been selected for primary ERCP. In the application cohort, the frequency of therapy was higher than in the development cohort. The area under the ROC curve was 78.7 %. When used in the evaluation cohort, with a cutoff probability of 80 %, the test had sensitivity 84.0 %, specificity 49.5 %, negative predictive value (NPV) 46.6 % and PPV 85.6 %. Of the patients, 76.7 % would have been selected for ERCP. This would have identified 85.5 % of individuals needing therapeutic ERCP without use first of MRCP or EUS. Test-positive cases constituted 90.3 % of stent insertions and 86.3 % of stone extractions. Conclusions: The model is useful for selection of patients for ERCP at our center.

References

  • 1 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al . Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A. et al . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 417-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Trap R, Adamsen S, Hart-Hansen O, Henriksen M. Severe and fatal complications after diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective series of claims to insurance covering public hospitals.  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 125-130
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality .Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancrestography. Summary. Evidence report/technologyassessment: number 50. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://www.ahrqgov/clinic/ercpsums/ercpsums.htm 2002
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Nathan T, Pedersen F M, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell O B. MRCP or ERCP: a randomised study of the initial approach to the patient with suspected obstructive biliary disease [abstract]. 10th United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW) Geneva; 19-23 October 2002
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Coakley F V, Qayyum A. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 2-12
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Macdonald G A, Peduto A J. Magnetic resonance imaging and diseases of the liver and biliary tract. Part 2. Magnetic resonance cholangiography and angiography and conclusions.  J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;  15 992-999
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Schofl R. Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Endoscopy. 2001;  33 147-157
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Calvo MM, Bujanda L, Calderon A. et al . Role of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.  Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;  77 422-428
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Mark D H, Carole R F, Aronson N. Evidence-based assessment of diagnostic modalities for common bile duct stones.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  56 190-194
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schofl R, Haefner M. Diagnostic cholangiopancreatography.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 145-55
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cotton P B. Evaluating ERCP is important but difficult.  Gut. 2002;  51 287-289
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Andersen J R, Sorensen S M, Kruse A. et al . Randomised trial of endoscopic endoprosthesis versus operative bypass in malignant obstructive jaundice.  Gut. 1989;  30 1132-1135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Shepherd H A, Royle G, Ross A P. et al . Endoscopic biliary endoprosthesis in the palliation of malignant obstruction of the distal common bile duct: a randomized trial.  Br J Surg. 1988;  75 1166-1168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Smith A C, Dowsett J F, Russell R C. et al . Randomised trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgical bypass in malignant low bile duct obstruction.  Lancet. 1994;  344 1655-1660
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Davids P H, Groen A K, Rauws E A. et al . Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction.  Lancet. 1992;  340 1488-1492
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Ostroff J W, LaBerge J M. Endoscopic and radiologic treatment of biliary disease. In: Feldman M, Scharschmidt BF, Sleisenger MH, (eds) Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease. New York; Saunders 1997: 1033-1055
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Lai E C, Mok F P, Tan E S. et al . Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis.  N Engl J Med. 1992;  326 1582-1586
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Leese T, Neoptolemos J P, Baker A R, Carr-Locke D L. Management of acute cholangitis and the impact of endoscopic sphincterotomy.  Br J Surg. 1986;  73 988-992
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Neoptolemos J P, Carr-Locke D L, London N J. et al . Controlled trial of urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment for acute pancreatitis due to gallstones.  Lancet. 1988;  2 979-983
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Cuschieri A, Croce E, Faggioni A. et al . EAES ductal stone study. Preliminary findings of multi-center prospective randomized trial comparing two-stage vs single-stage management.  Surg Endosc. 1996;  10 1130-1135
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Rhodes M, Sussman L, Cohen L, Lewis M P. Randomised trial of laparoscopic exploration of common bile duct versus postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for common bile duct stones.  Lancet. 1998;  351 159-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Neoptolemos J P, Davidson B R, Shaw D E. et al . Study of common bile duct exploration and endoscopic sphincterotomy in a consecutive series of 438 patients.  Br J Surg. 1987;  74 916-921
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Tham T C, Carr-Locke D L. Endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones in elderly people.  BMJ. 1999;  318 617-618
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Targarona E M, Ayuso R M, Bordas J M. et al . Randomised trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with gallbladder left in situ versus open surgery for common bile duct calculi in high-risk patients.  Lancet. 1996;  347 926-929
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hauer-Jensen M, Karesen R, Nygaard K. et al . Prospective randomized study of routine intraoperative cholangiography during open cholecystectomy: long-term follow-up and multivariate analysis of predictors of choledocholithiasis.  Surgery. 1993;  113 318-323
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Huguier M, Bornet P, Charpak Y. et al . Selective contraindications based on multivariate analysis for operative cholangiography in biliary lithiasis.  Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;  172 470-474
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Robertson G S, Jagger C, Johnson P R. et al . Selection criteria for preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the laparoscopic era.  Arch Surg. 1996;  131 89-94
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Stain S C, Marsri L S, Froes E T. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: laboratory predictors of choledocholithiasis.  Am Surg. 1994;  60 767-771
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Alponat A, Kum C K, Rajnakova A. et al . Predictive factors for synchronous common bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis.  Surg Endosc. 1997;  11 928-932
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Barkun A N, Barkun J S, Fried G M. et al . Useful predictors of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. McGill Gallstone Treatment Group.  Ann Surg. 1994;  220 32-39
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Chan A C, Chung S C, Wyman A. et al . Selective use of preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 212-215
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Houdart R, Perniceni T, Darne B. et al . Predicting common bile duct lithiasis: determination and prospective validation of a model predicting low risk.  Am J Surg. 1995;  170 38-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Taylor T V, Armstrong C P, Rimmer S. et al . Prediction of choledocholithiasis using a pocket microcomputer.  Br J Surg. 1988;  75 138-140
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Frossard J L, Hadengue A, Amouyal G. et al . Choledocholithiasis: a prospective study of spontaneous common bile duct stone migration.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 175-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Hosmer D W, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. Philadelphia; Wiley Interscience 1989
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Lidofsky S, Scharschmidt B F. Jaundice. In: Feldman M, Scharschmidt BF, Sleisenger MH, (eds) Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease. New York; Saunders 1997: 220-232
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Jensen K H, Jorgensen T. Incidence of gallstones in a Danish population.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  100 790-794
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Lowenfels A B, Velema J P. Estimating gallstone incidence from prevalence data.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1992;  27 984-986
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Haddock G, Carter D C. Aetiology of pancreatic cancer.  Br J Surg. 1990;  77 1159-1166
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Kew M C. Hepatic tumors and cysts. In: Feldman M, Scharschmidt BF, Sleisenger MH, (eds) Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease. New York; Saunders 1997: 1364-1387
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 42 Golub R, Cantu R Jr., Tan M. The prediction of common bile duct stones using a neural network.  J Am Coll Surg. 1998;  187 584-590
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Trondsen E, Edwin B, Reiertsen O. et al . Prediction of common bile duct stones prior to cholecystectomy: a prospective validation of a discriminant analysis function.  Arch Surg. 1998;  133 162-166
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

T. Nathan, M. D.

Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine

Vejle Hospital · 7100 Vejle · Denmark

Fax: +45-79406860

Email: Torben@Nathan.dk