Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review

Vinicius Leite De Castro, Eduardo Gh Moura, Dalton M Chaves, Wanderley M Bernardo, Sergio E Matuguma, Everson L A Artifon, Vinicius Leite De Castro, Eduardo Gh Moura, Dalton M Chaves, Wanderley M Bernardo, Sergio E Matuguma, Everson L A Artifon

Abstract

Background and objectives: There is a lack of consensus about the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Two previous systematic reviews used different methodologies not based on pretest probabilities that demonstrated no statistically significant difference between Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for the detection of choledocholithiasis. In this article, we made a comparison of the diagnostic ability of EUS and MRCP to detect choledocholithiasis in suspected patients.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations with all published randomized prospective trials. We performed the systemic review using MedLine, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, and Scopus reviews through May 2015. We identified eight randomized, prospective, blinded trials comparing EUS and MRCP. All the patients were submitted to a gold standard method. We calculated the study-specific variables and performed analyses using aggregated variables such as sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy.

Results: Five hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the analysis. The pretest probability for choledocholithiasis was 38.7. The mean sensitivity of EUS and MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis was 93.7 and 83.5, respectively; the specificity was 88.5 and 91.5, respectively. Regarding EUS and MRCP, PPV was 89 and 87.8, respectively, and NPV was 96.9 and 87.8, respectively. The accuracy of EUS and MRCP was 93.3 and 89.7, respectively.

Conclusions: For the same pretest probability of choledocholithiasis, EUS has higher posttest probability when the result is positive and a lower posttest probability when the result is negative compared with MRCP.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search Strategy: EUS versus MRCP in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis
Figure 2
Figure 2
EUS sensitivities and specificities for choledocholithiasis diagnoses
Figure 3
Figure 3
MRCP sensitivities and specificities for choledocholithiasis diagnosis
Figure 4
Figure 4
ROC curve

References

    1. Gallstones and Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. NIH Consens Statement. 1992;10:1–20.
    1. Hermann RE. The spectrum of biliary stone disease. Am J Surg. 1889;158:171–3.
    1. Pickuth D, Spielmann RP. Detection of choledocholithiasis: Comparison of unenhanced spiral CT, US, and ERCP. Hepatogastroenterology. 2000;47:1514–7.
    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.
    1. Kohut M, Nowakowska-Dulawa E, Marek T, et al. Accuracy of linear endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with suspected common bile duct stones. Endoscopy. 2002;34:299–303.
    1. Palazzo L, Girollet PP, Salmeron M, et al. Value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis of common bile duct stones: Comparison with surgical exploration and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:225–31.
    1. Chan YL, Chan AC, Lam WW, et al. Choledocholithiasis: Comparison of MR cholangiography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Radiology. 1996;200:85–9.
    1. Soto JA, Barish MA, Yucel EK, et al. Magnetic resonance cholangiography: Comparison with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:589–97.
    1. Becker CD, Grossholz M, Becker M, et al. Choledocholithiasis and bile duct stenosis: Diagnostic accuracy of MR cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;205:523–30.
    1. Varghese JC, Liddell RP, Farrell MA, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance cholagiopancreatography and ultrasound compared with direct cholangiography in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:25–35.
    1. de Lédinghen V, Lecesne R, Raymond JM, et al. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: EUS or magnetic resonance cholangiography. A prospective controlled study? Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:26–31.
    1. Materne R, Van Beers BE, Gigot JF, et al. Extrahepatic biliary obstruction: Magnetic resonance imaging compared with endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopy. 2000;32:3–9.
    1. Scheiman JM, Carlos RC, Barnett JL, et al. Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease. A prospective trial and cost analysis? Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:2900–4.
    1. Ainsworth AP, Rafaelsen SR, Wamberg PA, et al. Is there a difference in diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact between endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography? Endoscopy. 2003;35:1029–32.
    1. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: Comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol. 2005;54:271–5.
    1. Aube C, Delorme B, Yzet T, et al. MR cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic sonography in suspected common bile duct lithiasis: A prospective, comparative study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:55–62.
    1. Schmidt S, Chevallier P, Novellas S, et al. Choledocholithiasis: Repetitive thick-lab single-shot projection magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasonography. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:241–50.
    1. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, et al. EUS versus MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:248–54.
    1. Ledro-Cano D. Suspected choledocholithiasis: Endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography. A systematic review? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;19:1007–11.
    1. Fernández-Esparrach G, Ginès A, Sánchez M, et al. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases: A prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1632–9.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9. W64.
    1. Whiting P, Rutjes AW, Dinnes J, et al. Development and validation of methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(iii):1–234.
    1. Cochrane Informatics and Knowledge Management Department. Review Manager (RevMan) [[Last accessed on 2014 Nov 20]]. Available from: .
    1. Lee MG, Lee HJ, Kim MH, et al. Extrahepatic biliary diseases: 3D MR cholangiopancreatography compared with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Radiology. 1997;202:663–9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner