Publisher: Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases (RIGLD)
  • Register
  • Login

Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench

  • Home
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Archives
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • Aims and Scope
    • Editorial Team
    • Privacy Statement
    • Contact
  • For Authors
    • Submissions
    • Author Guidelines
    • Article Processing Charge
    • Peer Review Process
  • Indexing & Abstracting
  • Announcements
Advanced Search
  1. Home
  2. Archives
  3. Vol. 12 No. 2 (2019): Vol 12, No 2 (2019): Spring
  4. Original Article

Vol. 12 No. 2 (2019)

March 2019

Use of combined laboratory and ultrasonography results to select patients for biliary tract imaging or intervention: a retrospective cohort study

  • Shahab Hajibandeh
  • Shahin Hajibandeh
  • Joseph Thompson
  • Jonaid Mohammed
  • Christopher Smith
  • James Prince
  • Charlotte Lisberg
  • Leo Watton
  • Nathan Peter
  • Whajong Lee
  • Vivek Trivedi
  • Nicholas Hobbs
  • Jigar Shah
  • Rao Muhammad Asaf Khan
  • Sanjay Dalmia
  • Sohail Malik
  • Moustafa Mansour

Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench, Vol. 12 No. 2 (2019), 18 March 2019 , Page 116-123
https://doi.org/10.22037/ghfbb.v12i2.1404 Published: 2019-04-10

  • View Article
  • Download
  • Cite
  • References
  • Statastics
  • Share

Abstract

Aim: To determine whether combined laboratory and ultrasonography results can be used to select patients for biliary tract imaging (BTI) or intervention.

Background: Despite ongoing research, selection of patients with suspected CBD stone (CBDS) for BTI or direct intervention without imaging is still a subject of debate.

Methods: Patients aged?18 with symptomatic gallstone disease (SGD) who underwent MRCP over 3 years (2014-2017) were divided into the following cohorts: Group A: Normal liver enzymes with normal CBD diameter; Group B: Normal liver enzymes with dilated CBD; Group C: Isolated rise of liver enzymes with normal CBD diameter; Group D: Isolated rise of liver enzymes with dilated CBD; Group E: Hyperbilirubinemia with normal CBD diameter; Group F: Hyperbilirubinemia with dilated CBD. Binary logistic regression models were constructed for analyses.

Results: Overall, 1022 patients were included. The frequency of CBDS was 7.2% in Group A; 3.8% in Group B; 6.3% in Group C; 22% in Group D; 24.2% in Group E; 47.4%  in Group F. Hyperbilirubinemia with normal CBD (OR:1.52,P=0.010) and hyperbilirubinemia with dilated CBD (OR:5.12,P<0.001) independently predicted CBDS. Normal or isolated rise of liver enzymes with or without dilated CBD did not predict CBDS. Combined laboratory and ultrasonography had positive predictive value and negative predictive value of up to 47.37% and 100%, respectively.

Conclusion: Patients with isolated rise of liver enzymes or hyperbilirubinemia with or without dilated CBD should undergo BTI prior to ERCP. Direct ERCP could be preserved for patients with high suspicion of CBDS where clinical features do not allow waiting for BTI.

Keywords: Liver function test, Biliary calculi, Common bile duct, Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography.

(Please cite as: Hajibandeh S, Hajibandeh S, Thompson J, Mohammed J, Smith C, Prince J, et al. Use of combined laboratory and ultrasonography results to select patients for biliary tract imaging or intervention: a retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 2019;12(2):116-123).

Keywords:
  • liver function test
  • biliary calculi
  • common bile duct
  • magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography
  • PDF

How to Cite

Hajibandeh, S., Hajibandeh, S., Thompson, J., Mohammed, J., Smith, C., Prince, J., … Mansour, M. (2019). Use of combined laboratory and ultrasonography results to select patients for biliary tract imaging or intervention: a retrospective cohort study. Gastroenterology and Hepatology from Bed to Bench, 12(2), 116–123. https://doi.org/10.22037/ghfbb.v12i2.1404
  • ACM
  • ACS
  • APA
  • ABNT
  • Chicago
  • Harvard
  • IEEE
  • MLA
  • Turabian
  • Vancouver
  • Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
  • BibTeX

References

Almadi MA, Barkun JS, Barkun AN. Management of suspected stones in the common bile duct. CMAJ 2012; 184:884–92.

Topal B, Van de Moortel M, Fieuws S, Vanbeckevoort D, Van Steenbergen W, Aerts R, et al. The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in predicting common bile duct stones in patients with gallstone disease. Br J Surg 2003;90:42–7.

De Castro VL, Moura EG, Chaves DM, Bernardo WM, Matuguma SE, Artifon EL. Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review. Endosc Ultrasound 2016;5:118-28.

Epelboym I1, Winner M, Allendorf JD. MRCP is not a cost-effective strategy in the management of silent common bile duct stones. J Gastrointest Surg 2013;17:863-71.

Mercer S, Singh S, Paterson I. Selective MRCP in the management of suspected common bile duct stones. HPB 2007;9:125-30.

Videhult P, Sandblom G, Rudberg C, Rasmussen IC. Are liver function tests, pancreatitis and cholecystitis predictors of common bile duct stones? Results of a prospective, population-based, cohort study of 1171 patients undergoing cholecystectomy. HPB 2011;13:519–27.

Williams E, Beckingham I, El Sayed G, Gurusamy K, Sturgess R, Webster G, et al. Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2017;66:765-82.

Barkun AN, Barkun JS, Fried GM, Ghitulescu G, Steinmetz O, Pham C, et al. Useful predictors of bile duct stones in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. McGill Gallstone Treatment Group. Ann Surg 1994;220:32-9.

Tozatti J, Mello AL, Frazon O. Predictor factors for choledocholithiasis. Arq Bras Cir Dig 2015;28:109-12.

Kuzu UB, Ödemiş B, Dişibeyaz S, Parlak E, Öztaş E, Saygılı F, et al. Management of suspected common bile duct stone: diagnostic yield of current guidelines. HPB 2017;19:126-32.

  • Abstract Viewed: 276 times
  • PDF Downloaded: 167 times

Download Statastics

  • Linkedin
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • Telegram

Developed By

Open Journal Systems
  • Home
  • Archives
  • Submissions
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Team
  • Contact

GHFBB journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Print ISSN: 2008-2258
Online ISSN: 2008-4234

Support Contact: ghfbb.journal@gmail.com

Powered by OJSPlus