Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis
dc.contributor.author | Scheiman, James M. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Carlos, Ruth C. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Barnett, Jeffrey L. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Elta, Grace H. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Nostrant, Timothy T. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chey, William D. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Francis, Isaac R. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Nandi, Partha S. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-01T20:47:07Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-06-01T20:47:07Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2001-10 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Scheiman, James M.; Carlos, Ruth C.; Barnett, Jeffrey L.; Elta, Grace H.; Nostrant, Timothy T.; Chey, William D.; Francis, Issac R.; Nandi, Partha S. (2001). "Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis." The American Journal of Gastroenterology 96(10): 2900-2904. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73885> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0002-9270 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1572-0241 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/73885 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11693324&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | ERCP is the gold standard for pancreaticobiliary evaluation but is associated with complications. Less invasive diagnostic alternatives with similar capabilities may be cost-effective, particularly in situations involving low prevalence of disease. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ERCP in the same patients with suspected extrahepatic biliary disease. The economic outcomes of EUS-, MRCP-, and ERCP-based diagnostic strategies were evaluated. METHODS : Prospective cohort study of patients referred for ERCP with suspected biliary disease. MRCP and EUS were performed within 24 h before ERCP. The investigators were blinded to the results of the alternative imaging studies. A cost-utility analysis was performed for initial ERCP, MRCP, and EUS strategies for these patients. RESULTS : A total of 30 patients were studied. ERCP cholangiogram failed in one patient, and another patient did not complete MRCP because of claustrophobia. The final diagnoses ( n = 28 ) were CBD stone (mean = 4 mm; range = 3–6 mm) in five patients; biliary stricture in three patients, and normal biliary tree in 20. Two patients had pancreatitis after therapeutic ERCP, one after precut sphincterotomy followed by a normal cholangiogram. EUS was more sensitive than MRCP in the detection of choledocolithiasis (80% vs 40%), with similar specificity. MRCP had a poor specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of biliary stricture (76%/25%) compared to EUS (100%/100%), with similar sensitivity. The overall accuracy of MRCP for any abnormality was 61% (95% CI = 0.41–0.78) compared to 89% (CI = 0.72–0.98) for EUS. Among those patients with a normal biliary tree, the proportion correctly identified with each test was 95% for EUS and 65% for MRCP ( p < 0.02 ). The cost for each strategy per patient evaluated was $1346 for ERCP, $1111 for EUS, and $1145 for MRCP. CONCLUSIONS : In this patient population with a low disease prevalence, EUS was superior to MRCP for choledocholithiasis. EUS was most useful for confirming a normal biliary tree and should be considered a low-risk alternative to ERCP. Although MRCP had the lowest procedural reimbursement, the initial EUS strategy had the greatest cost-utility by avoiding unnecessary ERCP examinations. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 97901 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3109 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Science Inc | en_US |
dc.rights | 2001 by Am. Coll. of Gastroenterology | en_US |
dc.title | Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Internal Medicine and Specialties | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 11693324 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73885/1/j.1572-0241.2001.04245.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.04245.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | The American Journal of Gastroenterology | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Freeman M.L., Nelson D.B., Sherman S., et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909 – 918. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Prat F., Amouyal G., Amouyal P., et al. Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bile duct lithiasis. Lancet 1996; 347: 75 – 79. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sahai A.V., Mauldin P.D., Marsi V., et al. Bile duct stones and laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A decision analysis to assess the roles of intraoperative cholangiography, EUS and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 334 – 343. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Soto J.A., Barish M.A., Yucel E.K., et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: Comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 1996; 110: 589 – 597. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Trede M., Rumstadt B., Wendl K., et al. Ultrafast magnetic resonance imaging improves the staging of pancreatic tumors. Ann Surg 1997; 226: 393 – 407. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zidi S.H., Prat F., Guen O.L., et al. Use of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: Prospective comparison with a reference imaging method. Gut 1999; 44: 118 – 122. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cannon M.E., Carpenter S.L., Elta G.H., et al. EUS compared with CT, MRI, and angiography, and the influence of biliary stenting on staging accuracy of ampullary neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 27 – 33. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tierney W.M., Fendrick A.M., Hirth R.A., Scheiman J.M.. The clinical and economic impact of alternative staging strategies for adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 1708 – 1713. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cotton P., Sahai A.. Do asymptomatic bile duct stones need to be removed ?. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 587 – 594. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Barish M.A., Yucel E.K., Ferrucci J.T.. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 258 – 264. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Demartines N., Eisner L., Schnabel K., et al. Evaluation of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the management of bile duct stones. Arch Surg 2000; 135: 148 – 152. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Liu T.H., Consort E.T., Kawashima A., et al. The efficacy of magnetic resonance cholangiography for the evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis before laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 1999; 178: 480 – 484. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lee M.G., Lee H.J., Kim M.H., et al. Extrahepatic biliary diseases: 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology 1997; 202: 663 – 669. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chak A., Hawes R.H., Cooper G.S., et al. Prospective assessment of the utility of EUS in the evaluation of gallstone pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 49: 599 – 604. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.