Prospective assessment of the accuracy of ASGE and ESGE guidelines for choledocholithiasis

Abstract

Background and study aims American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend categorizing patients by risk for choledocholithiasis to determine management. The goal of our study was to compare the accuracy of criteria proposed in these guidelines.

Patients and methods All patients with suspected choledocholithiasis at our institution were prospectively identified. Based upon initial test results, patients were categorized as low, intermediate, and high risk for choledocholithiasis per ASGE 2010 and 2019, and ESGE criteria. Patients were followed until 30 days post-discharge. Results of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were used as criteria standard for choledocholithiasis. The accuracy of each criterion for choledocholithiasis was computed.

Results During the study period, 359 consecutive patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were identified, of whom 225 had choledocholithiasis. Median patient age was 69 years and 55.3% were women. ESGE criteria categorized 47.9% as high-risk, lower than ASGE 2010 (62.7%, P<0.01), and 2019 criteria (54.6%, P=0.07). In high-risk patients, choledocholithiasis was noted in 83.1% for ESGE criteria, similar for ASGE 2019 (81.6%, P=0.7) and 2010 criteria (79.1%, P=0.3). The percentage of patients who underwent unnecessary ERCP was 8.1% per ESGE criteria, lower than ASGE 2010 (13.1%, P=0.03), but similar to 2019 criteria (10%, P=0.4). No difference in accuracy for choledocholithiasis was noted among the three criteria. No 30-day readmissions for choledocholithiasis were noted in the low-risk category.

Conclusions ESGE and ASGE guidelines have similar accuracy for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. However, ESGE criteria result in more patients needing additional testing, but also a smaller proportion of patients undergoing unnecessary ERCP.

Publication History

Received: 11 August 2022

Accepted after revision: 02 May 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
08 May 2023

Article published online:
21 June 2023

• References

• 1 Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC. et al. Burden and Cost of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2018. J Gastroenterol 2019; 156: 254-272.e11
• 2 Frossard JL, Morel PM. Detection and management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 808-816 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.033. (PMID: 20883860)
• 3 Manes G, Paspatis G, Aabakken L. et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472-491 DOI: 10.1055/a-0862-0346. (PMID: 30943551)
• 4 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x. (PMID: 17509029)
• 5 Buxbaum JL, Buitrago C, Lee A. et al. ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 207-21.e14
• 6 Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA. et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1-9 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.041. (PMID: 20105473)
• 7 Wangchuk K, Pongsakorn S. Accuracy of SAGES, ASGE, and ESGE Criteria in Predicting Choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 7233-7239
• 8 Chandran A, Rashtak S, Patil P. et al. Comparing diagnostic accuracy of current practice guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis: outcomes from a large healthcare system comprising both academic and community settings. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1351-1359
• 9 Jagtap N, Hs Y, Tandan M. et al. Clinical utility of ESGE and ASGE guidelines for prediction of suspected choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 569-573 DOI: 10.1055/a-1117-3451. (PMID: 32106321)
• 10 Jacob JS, Lee ME, Chew EY. et al. Evaluating the revised American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for common bile duct stone diagnosis. Clin Endosc 2021; 54: 269-274 DOI: 10.5946/ce.2020.100. (PMID: 33153247)
• 11 Hasak S, McHenry S, Busebee B. et al. Validation of choledocholithiasis predictors from the 2019 ASGE Guideline for the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Surg Endosc 2021; 36: 4199-4206
• 12 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C. et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-111 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302779. (PMID: 23100216)
• 13 Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T. et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2018; 25: 17-30
• 14 Meeralam Y, Al-Shammari K, Yaghoobi M. Diagnostic accuracy of EUS compared with MRCP in detecting choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy in head-to-head studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 986-993 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.009. (PMID: 28645544)
• 15 Jagtap N, Kumar JK, Chavan R. et al. EUS versus MRCP to perform ERCP in patients with intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a randomised controlled trial. Gut 2022; 71: 2005-2010
• 16 Chen YI, Martel M, Barkun AN. Choledocholithiasis: Should EUS replace MRCP in patients at intermediate risk?. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 994-996 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.07.034. (PMID: 29146091)
• 17 Wang Y, Murphy D, Li S. et al. S124 Thirty-day readmission among patients with uncomplicated choledocholithiasis: a nationwide readmission database analysis. J Cin Gastroenterol 2021; 116: S52-S53