Diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with intermediate suspicion of choledocholithiasis and absence of findings in magnetic resonance cholangiography.

BACKGROUND: endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) are the elective tests in the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. MRC is best accepted by patients, but its sensitivity might decrease in the evaluation of microlithiasis. AIM: to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic impact of EUS in a prospective cohort of patients with intermediate suspicion of choledocolithiasis and no findings in MRC (normal MRC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: during a period of 24 months, all the patients with clinical intermediate suspicion of choledocholithiasis and normal MRC were included. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRC and EUS were compared, and so their impact in the management of these patients. RESULTS: seventy six patients were evaluated (lithiasis in 30% of them). Sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of EUS (100%, 92%) were significantly higher than MRC values (0%, 70%) (p < 0.05). EUS findings (suspicion of choledocholithiasis) favored a significant change in therapeutic attitude (therapeutic ERCP was performed) in 38% of the patients (in which MRC had ruled out the presence of choledocholithiasis, and so, ERCP had not been performed) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: EUS allows the diagnosis of lithiasis in approximately 1/3 of patients with intermediate suspicion of choledocholithiasis and normal MRC. EUS findings involve a significant change in the management of these patients; this supports the use of EUS in clinical practice.

What Is the Value of the Learning Curve in Endoscopic Balloon Dilatation of the Major Papilla?

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation (EPLBD) is an alternative for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. Existing evidence of factors associated with its outcomes is contradictory. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors (including the experience of an endoscopist) of success and adverse events in EPLBD. METHODS: We reviewed the first 200 EPLBD with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) performed at our center. Demographic, clinical, and anatomic variables were studied, as well as the performance characteristics, correlating them with individual and group experience. RESULTS: Global success was obtained in 87% of cases, and adverse events occurred in 16% of cases. Success was associated with stone size, CBD diameter, and the need to perform mechanical lithotripsy (ML). Despite that adverse events were not univariately associated with any factor, severe adverse events were more likely to occur in stones > 13.5 mm. Multivariate analysis which disclosed success was higher when ML was not required and stones were < 13.5 mm. It also showed that no factor was associated with adverse events or their severity. No differences were found on success or adverse events that could be directly related to experience. CONCLUSIONS: Success of EPLBD-EST is higher in stones < 13.5 mm and when ML is not required. Experience does not appear to play a major role.

Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration of central mediastinal lung masses.

UNLABELLED: Background and Aims. EUS-FNA is an accurate and safe technique to biopsy mediastinal lymph nodes. However, there are few data pertaining to the role of EUS-FNA to biopsy central lung masses. The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic yield and safety of EUS-FNA of indeterminate central mediastinal lung masses. Methods. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database; noncomparative. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. From 10/2004 to 12/2010, all patients with a lung mass located within proximity to the esophagus were referred for EUS-FNA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: EUS-FNA diagnostic accuracy and safety. Results. 73 consecutive patients were included. EUS allowed detection in 62 (85%) patients with lack of visualization prohibiting FNA in 11 patients. Among sampled lesions, one patient (1/62 = 1.6%) had a benign lung mass (hamartoma), while the remaining 61 patients (61/62 = 98.4%) had a malignant mass (primary lung cancer: 55/61 = 90%; lung metastasis: 6/61 = 10%). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 96.7%, 100%, and 96.7%, respectively. The sensitivity was 80.8% when considering nonvisualized masses. One patient developed a pneumothorax (1/62 = 1.6%). Conclusions. EUS-FNA appears to be an accurate and safe technique for tissue diagnosis of central mediastinal lung masses.