Center for Interventional Gastroenterology at UTHealth (iGUT), McGovern Medical School, UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.
School of Biomedical Informatics, UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Jun;93(6):1351-1359. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.033. Epub 2020 Nov 5.
The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) 2010 guidelines for suspected choledocholithiasis were recently updated by proposing more specific criteria for selection of high-risk patients to undergo direct ERCP while advocating the use of additional imaging studies for intermediate- and low-risk individuals. We aim to compare the performance and diagnostic accuracy of 2019 versus 2010 ASGE criteria for suspected choledocholithiasis.
We performed a retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database (2013-2019) of over 10,000 ERCPs performed by 70 gastroenterologists in our 14-hospital system. We randomly selected 744 ERCPs in which the primary indication was suspected choledocholithiasis. Patients with a history of cholecystectomy or prior sphincterotomy were excluded. The same patient cohort was assigned as low, intermediate, or high risk according to the 2010 and 2019 guideline criteria. Overall accuracy of both guidelines was compared against the presence of stones and/or sludge on ERCP.
Of 744 patients who underwent ERCP, 544 patients (73.1%) had definite stones during ERCP and 696 patients (93.5%) had stones and/or sludge during ERCP. When classified according to the 2019 guidelines, fewer patients were high risk (274/744, 36.8%) compared with 2010 guidelines (449/744, 60.4%; P < .001). Within the high-risk group per both guidelines, definitive stone was found during ERCP more frequently in the 2019 guideline cohort (226/274, 82.5%) compared with the 2010 guideline cohort (342/449, 76.2%; P < .001). In our patient cohort, overall specificity of the 2010 guideline was 46.5%, which improved to 76.0% as per 2019 guideline criteria (P < .001). However, no significant change was noted for either positive predictive value or negative predictive value between 2019 and 2010 guidelines.
The 2019 ASGE guidelines are more specific for detection of choledocholithiasis during ERCP when compared with the 2010 guidelines. However, a large number of patients are categorized as intermediate risk per 2019 guidelines and will require an additional confirmatory imaging study.
美国胃肠内镜学会(ASGE)2010 年胆石症疑似诊断指南最近进行了更新,提出了更具体的标准来选择高危患者进行直接 ERCP,同时提倡对中危和低危患者使用额外的影像学检查。我们旨在比较 2019 年和 2010 年 ASGE 胆石症疑似诊断指南的性能和诊断准确性。
我们对我们 14 家医院系统中 70 位胃肠科医生进行的超过 10000 例 ERCP 的前瞻性维护数据库(2013-2019 年)进行了回顾性图表审查。我们随机选择了 744 例 ERCP 作为主要指征的胆石症疑似患者。排除了有胆囊切除术或先前括约肌切开术史的患者。根据 2010 年和 2019 年指南标准,同一患者队列被分配为低危、中危或高危。比较两种指南对 ERCP 中结石和/或淤泥的总体准确性。
在 744 例接受 ERCP 的患者中,544 例(73.1%)在 ERCP 中发现明确结石,696 例(93.5%)在 ERCP 中发现结石和/或淤泥。根据 2019 年指南分类,高危患者较少(274/744,36.8%),而 2010 年指南则为(449/744,60.4%;P<0.001)。在这两种指南的高危组中,2019 年指南队列中在 ERCP 中发现明确结石的患者更为常见(226/274,82.5%),而 2010 年指南队列中为(342/449,76.2%;P<0.001)。在我们的患者队列中,2010 年指南的总体特异性为 46.5%,根据 2019 年指南标准提高至 76.0%(P<0.001)。然而,2019 年和 2010 年指南之间,阳性预测值和阴性预测值均无显著变化。
与 2010 年指南相比,2019 年 ASGE 指南在 ERCP 期间对胆石症的检测更为特异。然而,根据 2019 年指南,大量患者被归类为中危,需要进行额外的确认性影像学检查。