A comparative study of diagnostic scoring systems for autoimmune pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Several diagnostic scoring systems for autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) have been proposed including the Asian, HISORt (Histology, Imaging, Serology, Other organ involvement and Response to therapy), and International Consensus Diagnostic Criteria (ICDC), which have been compared by a few studies. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of these criteria in patients diagnosed with AIP between May 1992 and August 2011. METHODS: Scoring systems were applied retrospectively using data obtained in the initial evaluation period, before pancreatic resection was performed. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen cases with AIP were included. Eighty-two percent met the diagnostic criteria for AIP according to either the Asian, HISORt, or ICDC criteria. Only 33% met the Asian criteria, probably mainly related to a low rate of diagnostic pancreatography. In 18%, all scoring systems failed to confirm the diagnosis, even though these patients were considered to have a firm diagnosis of AIP. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of AIP patients, the 3 major diagnostic scoring systems for AIP proved to be complementary rather than overlapping. Our data indicate that one-fifth of our AIP patients do not meet any of these scoring systems. The ICDC, Asian, and HISORt criteria should be considered as useful clinical tools but not as criterion standard for the diagnosis.

Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance.

BACKGROUND: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Committee on Outcomes Research has recommended monitoring nine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-specific quality indicators for quality assurance in ERCP. With the development of a self-assessment tool for ERCP (Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP-RAF-E), key indicators can easily be assessed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test in daily practice an easy-to-use form for assessment of procedural quality in ERCP and to determine ERCP quality outcomes in a tertiary referral hospital. DESIGN: This was a prospective study carried out in a tertiary referral hospital. In January 2008, a quality self-assessment programme was started. Five qualified endoscopists participated in this study. All ERCPs were appraised using RAF-E. Primary parameters were common bile duct (CBD) cannulation rate and procedural success. The indication was classified and procedural difficulty was graded; success rates of therapeutic interventions were measured for all different difficulty degrees. RESULTS: A total number of 1691 ERCPs were performed. 1515 (89.6%) of these were appraised using RAF-E. Median CBD cannulation success rate was 94.1%. Successful sphincterotomy was accomplished in almost all patients (median 100%; range 98.2-100%). Stent placement was successful in 97.8% and complete stone extraction, if indicated, was achieved in 86.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Quality indicators for ERCP can be measured using the Rotterdam self-assessment programme for ERCP. Outcome data in ERCPs obtained with this RAF-E provide insight into the quality of individual as well as group performance and can be used to assess and set standards for quality control in ERCP.

Endoscopic sclerotherapy compared with no specific treatment for the primary prevention of bleeding from esophageal varices. A randomized controlled multicentre trial [ISRCTN03215899].

BACKGROUND: Since esophageal variceal bleeding is associated with a high mortality rate, prevention of bleeding might be expected to result in improved survival. The first trials to evaluate prophylactic sclerotherapy found a marked beneficial effect of prophylactic treatment. These results, however, were not generally accepted because of methodological aspects and because the reported incidence of bleeding in control subjects was considered unusually high. The objective of this study was to compare endoscopic sclerotherapy (ES) with nonactive treatment for the primary prophylaxis of esophageal variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: 166 patients with esophageal varices grade II, III of IV according to Paquet's classification, with evidence of active or progressive liver disease and without prior variceal bleeding, were randomized to groups receiving ES (n = 84) or no specific treatment (n = 82). Primary end-points were incidence of bleeding and mortality; secondary end-points were complications and costs. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 32 months variceal bleeding occurred in 25% of the patients of the ES group and in 28% of the control group. The incidence of variceal bleeding for the ES and control group was 16% and 16% at 1 year and 33% and 29% at 3 years, respectively. The 1-year survival rate was 87% for the ES group and 84% for the control group; the 3-year survival rate was 62% for each group. In the ES group one death occurred as a direct consequence of variceal bleeding compared to 9 in the other group (p = 0.01, log-rank test). Complications were comparable for the two groups. Health care costs for patients assigned to ES were estimated to be higher. Meta-analysis of a large number of trials showed that the effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy is significantly related to the baseline bleeding risk. CONCLUSION: In the present trial, prophylactic sclerotherapy did not reduce the incidence of bleeding from varices in patients with liver cirrhosis and a low to moderate bleeding risk. Although sclerotherapy lowered mortality attributable to variceal bleeding, overall survival was not affected. The effect of prophylactic sclerotherapy seems dependent on the underlying bleeding risk. A beneficial effect can only be expected for patients with a high risk for bleeding.