超声内镜对胆胰疾病诊断价值的探讨

目的 探讨超声内镜（EUS）对胆胰疾病的诊断价值。方法 采用超声胃镜（频率为7．5MHz和20Mnz），应用水囊法结合水充盈法，对54例临床疑为胆胰病变的患者进行EUS检查，并与腹部B超、CT及ERCP比较。结果 EUS、US、CT、ERCP对胆胰疾病诊断的阳性率分别为92．6％（50/54）、57．4％（31／54）、64．8％（35／54）及76．2％（32／42）。EUS对胰腺癌诊断的阳性率达100％。高于腹部B超、CT及ERCP；EUS对胆总管结石及慢性胰腺炎的准确率分别为100％和88．9％。结论 EUS对胆胰疾病的诊断率高于腹部B超，CT及ERCP影像检查，尤其对胆管扩张病因的定位及定性诊断均有较大的诊断价值。     

内镜超声、ERCP、MRCP对特发性急性胰腺炎病因的诊断价值

急性胰腺炎(AP)是常见的急腹症之一,最常见的病因为胆石症和酗酒,70%～90%的患者可发现病因而治愈,但仍有10%～30%,的患者会有1次以上的复发~([1]),这些患者通过实验室及影像学检查未发现明确病因者,称为特发性急性胰腺炎(IAP)~([2]).本文回顾性分析我院收治的32例IAP患者资料,探讨内镜超声(EUS)、胰胆管逆行造影(ERCP)、磁共振(MRCP)对IAP病因的诊断价值.     

内镜超声对特发性急性胰腺炎病因诊断的临床应用价值

目的评估内镜超声(EUS)对初始诊断为特发性急性胰腺炎(IAP)患者病因学诊断的临床应用价值。方法收集2015年1月至2022年2月间海军军医大学第一附属医院消化内镜中心128例初次诊断为IAP后进一步行EUS和磁共振胰胆管造影(MRCP)检查患者的临床资料, 依据AP发作次数分为单次发作组(单发组, 51例)和多次发作组(复发组, 77例), 分析两组患者资料及EUS对两组IAP病因的诊断, 并与MRCP的病因诊断结果进行比较。结果单发组与复发组IAP患者的性别、年龄、吸烟史、饮酒史、胰腺疾病家族史、胆囊切除史、肝功能是否异常、胰腺炎严重程度等基本资料的差异均无统计学意义。经EUS检查后79例(62%)IAP患者明确了病因, 其中55例(43%)为胆道疾病(胆结石、胆道微结石和胆泥淤积), 24例(19%)有胰腺疾病(慢性胰腺炎、胰腺分裂、胰腺间质或胰腺导管改变)。单发组IAP患者病因为胆道疾病的占比显著高于复发组患者(59%比32%), 而复发组IAP患者病因为胰腺疾病的占比高于单发组(25%比10%), 差异均有统计学意义(P值分别为0.004、0.035)。EUS诊断IAP病因...     

磁共振胰胆管造影、超声内镜与逆行胰胆管造影诊断阻塞性黄疸的价值

目的：比较磁共振胰胆管造影（MRCP）、超声内镜（EUS）与内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）诊断阻塞性黄疸的价值。方法：39例阻塞性黄疸患者分别行MRCP、EUS和ERCP。MRCP采用重T2加权及超快速自旋回波水成像技术进行,EUS和ERCP按常规进行。结果：MRCP、EUS与ERCP诊断准确率分别为87．2％（34／39例）、94．9％（37／39例）和97．4％（38／39例）;对恶性狭窄的诊断准确率分别为61．5％（8／13例）、84．6％（11／13例）和92．3％（12／13例）;对胆总管结石的诊断准确率均为100．0％（21／21例）。结论：MRCP为无创性检查,在明确阻塞性黄疸病因时可作为首选方法,目前尚不能取代ERCP。EUS作为诊断胆、胰系统疾病的重要方法,与MRCP和ERCP结合,能提高阻塞性黄疸诊断 的准确率。     

超声内镜对慢性胰腺炎的诊断价值

目的：探讨超声内镜（EUS）对慢性胰腺炎的诊断价值。方法：对46例慢性胰腺炎患者进行EUS检查,并与体表超声（US）和内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）结果作比较。结果：EUS诊断慢性胰腺炎的敏感性和准确性均显著高于US和ERCP,其诊断符合率达91．3％,亦显著高于US（45．7％）和ERCP（58．7％）（P＜0．01）。结论：EUS对慢性胰腺炎有较高的诊断价值。     

内镜超声在非确定性胆总管结石经内镜 逆行胰胆管造影术前的应用价值

目的研究非确定性胆总管结石患者在经内镜逆行胰胆管造影（endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography,ERCP）术前行内镜超声检查术（endoscopic ultrasound,EUS）的临床价值。方法回顾性分析2017年1月—2019年12月天津市南开医院因临床表现和磁共振胰胆管成像术（magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography,MRCP）结果不相符的132例非确定性胆总管结石患者的资料。将患者分为A、B两组：A组MRCP显示有结石、临床表现可疑无结石,B组MRCP显示无结石、临床表现可疑有结石。患者均行EUS,根据EUS结果决定是否行ERCP,以ERCP结果和随访结果为金标准分析EUS的诊断准确率。结果132例患者经诊断金标准最终确认胆总管结石阳性87例,阴性45例。44例（33.3%）患者EUS阴性,经随访结果确认无结石,避免了不必要的ERCP。EUS诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为95.40%（83/87）、97.78%（44/45）、96.21%（127/132）、98.81%（83/84）、91.67%（44/48）,MRCP诊断胆总管结石的灵敏度、特异度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为66.67%（58/87）、82.22%（37/45）、71.97%（95/132）、87.88%（58/66）、56.06%（37/66）。两者灵敏度、准确率、阳性预测值、阴性预测值相比,差异均有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）。EUS对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果具有显著一致性（Kappa=0.917,P＜0.001）,MRCP对胆总管结石的诊断和最终诊断结果一致性较好（Kappa=0.439,P＜0.001）。EUS对A组MRCP假阳性的检出率高于对B组MRCP假阴性的检出率[8/8比89.66%（26/29）,P＜0.001]。结论EUS对非确定性胆总管结石的诊断优于MRCP,ERCP术前应用EUS可减少不必要的ERCP操作或避免结石遗漏。     

超声内镜诊断胆总管结石的临床价值分析

目的比较超声内镜（EUS）与B型超声波（US）、CT、磁共振胰胆管成像（MRCP）、内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）诊断胆总管结石的临床价值。方法对经手术及病理证实的96例胆总管结石患者的EUS、US、CT、MRCP、ERCP检查进行回顾性分析,比较其诊断胆总管结石的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值（PPV）、阴性预测值（NPV）及准确率。结果 EUS诊断敏感性、特异性、PPV、NPV及准确率均显著高于US（P〈0.05）,敏感性和准确率均显著高于CT（P〈0.05）,各项诊断指标与MRCP和ERCP比较无显著差异。结论 EUS诊断胆总管结石具有准确性和安全性高等优点,与US、CT、MRCP及ERCP相比具有一定优势。     

影像学检查在诊断慢性胰腺炎中的意义

目的　分析评价多种影像学检查在慢性胰腺炎诊断中的作用 ,有助于慢性胰腺炎的诊断。方法　回顾性总结北京协和医院 1991～ 2 0 0 0年间确诊的慢性胰腺炎患者 12 9例 ,分析体外超声 (US)、计算机X线断层摄影 (CT)、内镜逆行胰胆管造影 (ERCP)、超声内镜 (EUS)及磁共振胰胆管显影 (MR CP)在诊断慢性胰腺炎中的作用。结果　①EUS和MRCP诊断慢性胰腺炎的敏感性高 ,与ERCP的一致性较好。②ERCP的敏感性显著高于US与CT(P <0 .0 5 )。③US对胰管扩张检出的敏感性与特异性为 5 9.4 %与 93.8% ,CT分别为 6 0 .0 %与 95 .7%。④胰管病变重度组ERCP与BT PABA的一致率(87.5 % )较轻 中度组 (6 6 .7% )高。⑤慢性胰腺炎并发症越多 ,胰管病变程度越重。结论　在传统检查中 ,ERCP诊断慢性胰腺炎的敏感性最高 ;新近开展的EUS和MRCP敏感性高 ,且与ERCP有较好的一致性 ,是很有前途的检查方法     

特发性胰腺炎

一、概述 1．特发性胰腺炎定义：临床上约10％～30％的急、慢性胰腺炎患通过病史、体检、实验室检查和常规的影像学（包括腹部超声、CT和MRCP）评估后仍然难以确定病因，称为特发性胰腺炎（IP）。[第一段]     

胰腺囊性占位的影像学诊断比较研究

目的比较EUS、CT、ERCP、MRCP对胰腺囊性占位的诊断. 方法对46例胰腺囊性占位患者行EUS检查,并同时行CT、ERCP、MRCP、体表超声等检查,并对9例患者行EUS(B超)引导下胰腺囊性占位细针穿刺活检术.     

The substitution of endoscopic ultrasonography for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: implications for service development and training

Diagnostic indications of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) have not completely disappeared. But the substitution of this examination by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the work-up of biliary and pancreatic diseases is supported by EUS's reliability and cost-effectiveness. In the future EUS will be challenged by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), when easily available. Therefore, the choice between EUS, MRCP and ERCP will become simplified: MRCP as the first option for diagnosis, EUS in doubtful cases needing sampling for pathology and ERCP as a therapeutic alternative to some surgical procedures.     

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether initial endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of EUS, MRCP and ERCP was performed on 163 patients. The effectiveness of an investigation was defined as the percentage of patients with no need for further evaluation after the investigation in question had been performed. Costs were assumed from the budget-holder's point of view. RESULTS: MRCP, EUS and ERCP had a total accuracy of 0.91, 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. Eighty-four (52%) patients needed endoscopic therapy in combination with ERCP, giving an effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP of 0.44, 0.45 and 0.92, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP was 6622, 7353 and 4246 Danish Kroner (DKK) per fully investigated and treated patient (1 DKK=0.14 EUR). CONCLUSION: Within a patient population with a probability of therapeutic ERCP in 50% of the patients, ERCP was the most cost-effective strategy.     

Cost‐effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography,magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients suspected of pancreaticobiliary disease

Background: It is not known whether initial endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is more cost effective than endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Methods: A cost‐effectiveness analysis of EUS, MRCP and ERCP was performed on 163 patients. The effectiveness of an investigation was defined as the percentage of patients with no need for further evaluation after the investigation in question had been performed. Costs were assumed from the budget‐holder's point of view. Results: MRCP, EUS and ERCP had a total accuracy of 0.91, 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. Eighty‐four (52%) patients needed endoscopic therapy in combination with ERCP, giving an effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP of 0.44, 0.45 and 0.92, respectively. The cost‐effectiveness of MRCP, EUS, and ERCP was 6622, 7353 and 4246 Danish Kroner (DKK) per fully investigated and treated patient (1 DKK?=?0.14 EUR). Conclusion: Within a patient population with a probability of therapeutic ERCP in 50% of the patients, ERCP was the most cost‐effective strategy.     

Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis

OBJECTIVES: ERCP is the gold standard for pancreaticobiliary evaluation but is associated with complications. Less invasive diagnostic alternatives with similar capabilities may be cost-effective, particularly in situations involving low prevalence of disease. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ERCP in the same patients with suspected extrahepatic biliary disease. The economic outcomes of EUS-, MRCP-, and ERCP-based diagnostic strategies were evaluated. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients referred for ERCP with suspected biliary disease. MRCP and EUS were performed within 24 h before ERCP. The investigators were blinded to the results of the alternative imaging studies. A cost-utility analysis was performed for initial ERCP, MRCP, and EUS strategies for these patients. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were studied. ERCP cholangiogram failed in one patient, and another patient did not complete MRCP because of claustrophobia. The final diagnoses (N = 28) were CBD stone (mean = 4 mm; range = 3-6 mm) in five patients; biliary stricture in three patients, and normal biliary tree in 20. Two patients had pancreatitis after therapeutic ERCP, one after precut sphincterotomy followed by a normal cholangiogram. EUS was more sensitive than MRCP in the detection of choledocolithiasis (80% vs 40%), with similar specificity. MRCP had a poor specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of biliary stricture (76%/25%) compared to EUS (100%/100%), with similar sensitivity. The overall accuracy of MRCP for any abnormality was 61% (95% CI = 0.41-0.78) compared to 89% (CI = 0.72-0.98) for EUS. Among those patients with a normal biliary tree, the proportion correctly identified with each test was 95% for EUS and 65% for MRCP (p < 0.02). The cost for each strategy per patient evaluated was $1346 for ERCP, $1111 for EUS, and $1145 for MRCP. CONCLUSIONS: In this patient population with a low disease prevalence, EUS was superior to MRCP for choledocholithiasis. EUS was most useful for confirming a normal biliary tree and should be considered a low-risk alternative to ERCP. Although MRCP had the lowest procedural reimbursement, the initial EUS strategy had the greatest cost-utility by avoiding unnecessary ERCP examinations.     

Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis: a prospective comparison study

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP) remains challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) have been proposed as highly accurate diagnostic modalities. Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been previously used as a gold standard, it is associated with a small but significant risk. We aim to compare the accuracy of EUS and MRCP with the composite gold standard using ERCP, surgical pathology, and/or long-term clinical follow-up. METHODS: Ninety-nine patients with clinical signs and/or symptoms suggestive of CP were prospectively enrolled. The diagnosis of CP by MRCP was established when one or more of these features were present: main duct dilation without obstruction, dilated side branches, intraductal stones, ductal irregularity, reduced T1-signal intensity, parenchymal atrophy, and reduced secretory response to secretin administration. The diagnosis of CP by EUS was made when 4 or more of the established criteria were present. Accuracy of all criteria used ("EUS only," "MRCP only," "either EUS or MRCP," and "both EUS and MRCP") was compared with the composite gold standard. RESULTS: Forty patients were diagnosed with CP by the composite gold standard whereas the remaining 59 patients were controls. EUS only seemed more sensitive but equally specific compared with MRCP only to diagnose CP. The combination of EUS and MRCP had a sensitivity of 98% for either EUS or MRCP and a specificity of 100% for both EUS and MRCP. CONCLUSIONS: EUS and MRCP are highly accurate modalities for the diagnosis of CP and are complementary when used together. If confirmed in larger series, the diagnosis of CP by both EUS and MRCP is highly predictive and ERCP is unlikely to add any useful information.     

超声内镜诊断胆管恶性狭窄13例

目的:比较超声内镜(EUS)、内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)及磁共振胰胆管成像(MRCP)在诊断胆管恶性狭窄中的临床价值.方法:回顾性分析2008-01/2010-05天津市南开医院76例胆管恶性狭窄患者的EUS、ERCP、MRCP检查结果,比较敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确率.结果:EUS诊断胆管恶性狭窄敏感性(94.2%vs78.5%)、特异性(84.6%vs57.1%)、阳性预测值(89.1%vs64.5%)、阴性预测值(73.3%vs41.3%)、准确率(91.6%vs71.6%)均明显高于MRCP.EUS诊断胆管恶性狭窄敏感性(94.2%vs80.5%)、特异性(84.6%vs68.4%)、准确性(91.6%vs71.6%)明显优于ERCP.结论:EUS诊断胆管恶性狭窄,具有敏感性、特异性及准确性高的优势.     

Suspected choledocholithiasis: endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography? A systematic review

There is a lack of consensus on the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis after a negative transabdominal ultrasound and/or computed tomography. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography (MRCP) in patients with suspected common bile duct (CBD) stones. A search, using the following terms 'MRCP', 'EUS' and 'Choledocholithiasis' in Pubmed and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, was performed. Abstract books and reference list of review articles, as well as relevant studies, were also searched to complete our EUS versus MRCP for choledocholithiasis comparison studies database. The analysis demonstrated that, with respect to sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, there was no statistically significant difference between EUS and MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis. Our meta-analysis of prospective comparison of MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis yielded statistically similar diagnostic values for both techniques.     

Noninvasive vs. selective invasive biliary imaging for acute biliary pancreatitis: an economic evaluation by using decision tree analysis

BACKGROUND: ERCP is used selectively in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). In patients with ABP, ERCP often is difficult and has the potential to cause further damage. In addition, the prevalence of residual choledocholithiasis in ABP is low (<30%). EUS and MRCP accurately diagnose choledocholithiasis, but the performance of MRCP may be inferior in ABP. EUS, with ERCP when a stone is seen, has been shown to be feasible. This study assessed the relative costs and outcomes of EUS and MRCP in patients with ABP compared with standard care involving selective ERCP. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed, modeling standard care for nonsevere ABP (selective ERCP) and severe ABP (ERCP with sphincterotomy and balloon sweep). The other arms included either EUS or MRCP first, with the conversion to or the addition of ERCP when a bile-duct stone was seen. Probabilities and accuracy of EUS and MRCP were taken from published data. Costs were locally quantified in Canadian dollars (CDN), including nursing/technical/professional personnel, equipment maintenance, and disposable equipment. The robustness of assumptions was tested by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Overall, EUS in all patients with ABP was marginally dominant compared with standard care with selective ERCP ($58 CDN per patient less expensive; 0.9% fewer cases of pancreatitis [ERCP-related or recurrent]). In the severe ABP subgroup, EUS was more clearly dominant ($742 CDN per patient less expensive; 3% fewer cases of pancreatitis), and the nonsevere subgroup had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $17,000 per case of pancreatitis avoided. MRCP was more expensive than EUS in both subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is dominant in severe ABP. In nonsevere ABP, it is slightly more costly but is associated with fewer ERCPs and ERCP-related complications. A randomized trial would help to quantify the benefits of avoiding ERCP in these patients.