American Society For Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Criteria Research Articles

Diagnostic performance of the current risk-stratified approach with computed tomography for suspected choledocholithiasis and its options when negative finding

BackgroundSeveral studies evaluated the current guideline of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and reported only suboptimal accuracy. This study evaluated the diagnostic performance of the ASGE guideline based on computed tomography (CT) and role of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative CT finding. MethodsPatients with suspected choledocholithiasis undergoing ERCP between January 2016 and January 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent CT to detect choledocholithiasis. EUS or MRCP was performed when the CT scan showed negative findings. Patients were classified into the high and intermediate-risk groups, based on predictors from the ASGE criteria. ResultsOf 583 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis, 340 (58.3%) had stones on ERCP (65.9% in the high-risk group and 40.6% in the intermediate-risk group). The accuracy of ASGE guideline for CT was 63.98% (79.12% sensitivity, 42.80% specificity) and 36.02% (20.88% sensitivity, 57.20% specificity) in the high-risk and intermediate-risk groups, respectively. In 103 patients in the high-risk group underwent both CT and US, the accuracy of CT was higher than that of US for detecting choledocholithiasis (78.64% vs. 53.40%), with a significant difference in area under the curve (AUC) (0.78 vs. 0.59, P < 0.001). Of 339 with negative CT finding, the accuracy of EUS was higher than that of MRCP (90.91% vs. 82.76%), but with no significant difference in AUC (0.91 vs. 0.83, P = 0.347). ConclusionsCT-based ASGE guideline showed superior diagnostic performance than US for predicting choledocholithiasis. The diagnostic options, EUS or MRCP, with negative CT finding showed comparable performance. Therefore, the diagnostic modality should be selected based on availability, experience, cost, and contraindications.

Prospective assessment of consensus criteria for evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines have proposed criteria to stratify patients into low, intermediate and high risk of choledocholithiasis. The criteria include variables that are readily available in clinical practice. The objective of the present study was to prospectively assess the accuracy of these criteria. A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. All adult patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with suspected choledocholithiasis were considered for inclusion. ASGE criteria were applied, and each patient was categorized as high, intermediate or low risk for choledocholithiasis. Presence of stone at ERCP served as criteria standard. During the study period, 402 patients met study inclusion criteria and 336 were reported in the final analysis. Of the 244 patients in the high risk for choledocholithiasis group, 185 were found to have stones at ERCP (75.8%, 95% CI 70.2-80.1%). Of the 92 patients in the intermediate risk for choledocholithiasis group, 45 had stones at ERCP (48.9%, 95% CI 38.8-59.1%); P-value for difference between groups = 0.001. Diagnostic accuracy for choledocholithiasis in the high-risk group was 69.05%, and for the intermediate group was 39.95%. Presence of choledocholithiasis on pre-ERCP imaging (OR: 3.6; 95% CI 2.2-6.0; P < 0.01), and bilirubin >1.8 but <4 mg/dL (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.0-2.8; P < 0.04) were the strongest predictors of choledocholithiasis. No additional variable that improved accuracy of ASGE criteria was identified. ASGE criteria stratify patients by risk for choledocholithiasis and can be used in routine clinical practice.

ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of upper endoscopy: Association with endoscopic findings

Background: This prospective study examined the appropriate use of EGD in an open-access system with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines and determined whether the ASGE guidelines were associated with relevant endoscopic findings. Methods: In a cohort of 1777 consecutive patients referred for open-access EGD, the proportion of patients who underwent EGD for appropriate indications was prospectively assessed. The relationship between appropriateness and the presence of clinically relevant endoscopic diagnoses was assessed by calculating (1) the likelihood ratio, positive and negative, of the indications; and (2) the change in the probability of relevant endoscopic diagnoses in the presence of the ASGE criteria. Results: The rate for EGDs “generally not indicated” was 15.6%. Relevant endoscopic diagnoses were present in 47.4% of cases with ASGE indications versus 28.8% of patients without appropriate indications as defined by the ASGE criteria (OR: 2.23; 99% CI [1.55, 3.22]; p < 0.01). A similar difference was observed for erosive gastritis (OR: 1.86; 99% CI [1.17, 2.95]; p < 0.01), erosive esophagitis (OR: 1.48; 99% CI [0.87, 2.52]; p < 0.05), and Barrett's esophagus (OR: 9.76; 99% CI [0.72, 132]; p < 0.05). The pretest probability of finding a relevant endoscopic diagnosis was modified slightly when an ASGE indication(s) was present and decreased markedly when ASGE criteria were absent. Conclusions: The use of the ASGE guideline for appropriate indications for EGD can improve patient selection for the procedure. However, to avoid missed diagnoses of serious disease, use of the guidelines must be tailored to the specific clinical setting. (Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:714-9.)