Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006 |
Resumo: | Introduction: The prevalence of choledocholithiasis among patients with acute cholecystitis is estimated to be between 9 and 16.5%. There are no validated algorithms to predict choledocholithiasis in this group of patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in patients with acute cholecystitis. Material/Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study, covering a 4-year period at a secondary care hospital, was performed. All patients with an encoded diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and with at least one of the following procedures were included: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography. Results: Among 4,369 patients with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, 40 (0.92%) had clinical or sonographic suspicion of choledocholithiasis. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 15 years, and 22 (55%) were men. Thirty-one of the patients included (77.5%) had a high risk of choledocholithiasis, and 9 (22.5%) had an intermediate risk. In 16 (51.6%) of the 31 patients with a high risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was confirmed. In 2 (22.2%) of the 9 patients with an intermediate risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasiswas also confirmed. The high risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 52% and a sensitivity of 89%. The intermediate risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 22% and a sensitivity of 11%. Discussion and Conclusions: Suspicion of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute cholecystitis was a rare event (<1%). The sensitivity of the high risk score was approximately the same as found in published series with patients with suspected choledocholithiasis overall (86%), while the positive predictive value was substantially lower (52 vs. 79.8%). Therefore, in patients with acute cholecystitis and suspected choledocholithiasis, this score should not be used to screen for common bile duct stones, and a sensitive method should be used prior to ERCP. |
id |
RCAP_23016d44b2851a93f2e06971fbfe56d0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S2341-45452018000100006 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute CholecystitisCholedocholithiasisAcute cholecystitisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyIntroduction: The prevalence of choledocholithiasis among patients with acute cholecystitis is estimated to be between 9 and 16.5%. There are no validated algorithms to predict choledocholithiasis in this group of patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in patients with acute cholecystitis. Material/Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study, covering a 4-year period at a secondary care hospital, was performed. All patients with an encoded diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and with at least one of the following procedures were included: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography. Results: Among 4,369 patients with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, 40 (0.92%) had clinical or sonographic suspicion of choledocholithiasis. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 15 years, and 22 (55%) were men. Thirty-one of the patients included (77.5%) had a high risk of choledocholithiasis, and 9 (22.5%) had an intermediate risk. In 16 (51.6%) of the 31 patients with a high risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was confirmed. In 2 (22.2%) of the 9 patients with an intermediate risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasiswas also confirmed. The high risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 52% and a sensitivity of 89%. The intermediate risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 22% and a sensitivity of 11%. Discussion and Conclusions: Suspicion of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute cholecystitis was a rare event (<1%). The sensitivity of the high risk score was approximately the same as found in published series with patients with suspected choledocholithiasis overall (86%), while the positive predictive value was substantially lower (52 vs. 79.8%). Therefore, in patients with acute cholecystitis and suspected choledocholithiasis, this score should not be used to screen for common bile duct stones, and a sensitive method should be used prior to ERCP.Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia2018-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.25 n.1 2018reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAPenghttp://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006Gouveia,CatarinaLoureiro,RuiFerreira,RosaFerreira,Alexandre OliveiraSantos,António AlbertoSantos,Maria Pia CostaPalmela,CarolinaCravo,Maríliainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-02-06T17:33:49Zoai:scielo:S2341-45452018000100006Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T02:36:02.516243Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
title |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
spellingShingle |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis Gouveia,Catarina Choledocholithiasis Acute cholecystitis Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
title_short |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
title_full |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
title_fullStr |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
title_sort |
Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis |
author |
Gouveia,Catarina |
author_facet |
Gouveia,Catarina Loureiro,Rui Ferreira,Rosa Ferreira,Alexandre Oliveira Santos,António Alberto Santos,Maria Pia Costa Palmela,Carolina Cravo,Marília |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Loureiro,Rui Ferreira,Rosa Ferreira,Alexandre Oliveira Santos,António Alberto Santos,Maria Pia Costa Palmela,Carolina Cravo,Marília |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Gouveia,Catarina Loureiro,Rui Ferreira,Rosa Ferreira,Alexandre Oliveira Santos,António Alberto Santos,Maria Pia Costa Palmela,Carolina Cravo,Marília |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Choledocholithiasis Acute cholecystitis Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
topic |
Choledocholithiasis Acute cholecystitis Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography |
description |
Introduction: The prevalence of choledocholithiasis among patients with acute cholecystitis is estimated to be between 9 and 16.5%. There are no validated algorithms to predict choledocholithiasis in this group of patients. Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in patients with acute cholecystitis. Material/Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study, covering a 4-year period at a secondary care hospital, was performed. All patients with an encoded diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and with at least one of the following procedures were included: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography. Results: Among 4,369 patients with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, 40 (0.92%) had clinical or sonographic suspicion of choledocholithiasis. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 15 years, and 22 (55%) were men. Thirty-one of the patients included (77.5%) had a high risk of choledocholithiasis, and 9 (22.5%) had an intermediate risk. In 16 (51.6%) of the 31 patients with a high risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was confirmed. In 2 (22.2%) of the 9 patients with an intermediate risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasiswas also confirmed. The high risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 52% and a sensitivity of 89%. The intermediate risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 22% and a sensitivity of 11%. Discussion and Conclusions: Suspicion of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute cholecystitis was a rare event (<1%). The sensitivity of the high risk score was approximately the same as found in published series with patients with suspected choledocholithiasis overall (86%), while the positive predictive value was substantially lower (52 vs. 79.8%). Therefore, in patients with acute cholecystitis and suspected choledocholithiasis, this score should not be used to screen for common bile duct stones, and a sensitive method should be used prior to ERCP. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-02-01 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006 |
url |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
http://scielo.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2341-45452018000100006 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology v.25 n.1 2018 reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799137412972019712 |