Yufang Cui, Jun Li, Qiming Huang, Jianglong Hong, Suwen Li, Lihong Chen, Junjun Bao, Qiao Mei
{"title":"美国胃肠内窥镜学会、欧洲胃肠内窥镜学会和美国胃肠内窥镜外科学会预测胆总管微石症标准的准确性","authors":"Yufang Cui, Jun Li, Qiming Huang, Jianglong Hong, Suwen Li, Lihong Chen, Junjun Bao, Qiao Mei","doi":"10.1097/MEG.0000000000003037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with suspected common bile duct stones are classified as high risk (HR), intermediate risk (IR), or low risk (LR) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). This study validated common bile duct microlithiasis (CBDM) clinical risk stratification utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed cases of suspected CBDM between November 2017 and May 2024. After liver function tests, ultrasound or computed tomography, all patients were stratified according to ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES into HR, IR, and LR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 269 HR patients, diagnostic accuracy was 61.71% [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.77-67.32] for ASGE, 60.59% (95% CI: 54.65-66.25) for ESGE, and 56.51% (95% CI: 50.53-62.30) for SAGES. In the IR group, CBDM confirmation by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) revealed: under ASGE (n = 108), E US detected CBDM in 52 (no stones: 13) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 19 (negative: 46), yielding 36.5% sensitivity; for ESGE (n = 93), EUS identified CBDM in 46 (no stones:9) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 32 (negative: 25) at 69.6% sensitivity; per SAGES (n = 69), in the 43 receiving both modalities, EUS detected CBDM in 37 (no stones: 6) vs. MRCP detected CBDM in 14 (negative: 29) with 37.8% sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We validated ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES for CBDM prediction but found suboptimal. EUS demonstrates superior sensitivity over MRCP for IR evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11999,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons criteria in predicting common bile duct microlithiasis.\",\"authors\":\"Yufang Cui, Jun Li, Qiming Huang, Jianglong Hong, Suwen Li, Lihong Chen, Junjun Bao, Qiao Mei\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MEG.0000000000003037\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with suspected common bile duct stones are classified as high risk (HR), intermediate risk (IR), or low risk (LR) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). This study validated common bile duct microlithiasis (CBDM) clinical risk stratification utility.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed cases of suspected CBDM between November 2017 and May 2024. After liver function tests, ultrasound or computed tomography, all patients were stratified according to ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES into HR, IR, and LR.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 269 HR patients, diagnostic accuracy was 61.71% [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.77-67.32] for ASGE, 60.59% (95% CI: 54.65-66.25) for ESGE, and 56.51% (95% CI: 50.53-62.30) for SAGES. In the IR group, CBDM confirmation by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) revealed: under ASGE (n = 108), E US detected CBDM in 52 (no stones: 13) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 19 (negative: 46), yielding 36.5% sensitivity; for ESGE (n = 93), EUS identified CBDM in 46 (no stones:9) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 32 (negative: 25) at 69.6% sensitivity; per SAGES (n = 69), in the 43 receiving both modalities, EUS detected CBDM in 37 (no stones: 6) vs. MRCP detected CBDM in 14 (negative: 29) with 37.8% sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We validated ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES for CBDM prediction but found suboptimal. EUS demonstrates superior sensitivity over MRCP for IR evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11999,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000003037\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000003037","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Accuracy of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons criteria in predicting common bile duct microlithiasis.
Background: Patients with suspected common bile duct stones are classified as high risk (HR), intermediate risk (IR), or low risk (LR) based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES). This study validated common bile duct microlithiasis (CBDM) clinical risk stratification utility.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed cases of suspected CBDM between November 2017 and May 2024. After liver function tests, ultrasound or computed tomography, all patients were stratified according to ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES into HR, IR, and LR.
Results: Among 269 HR patients, diagnostic accuracy was 61.71% [95% confidence interval (CI): 55.77-67.32] for ASGE, 60.59% (95% CI: 54.65-66.25) for ESGE, and 56.51% (95% CI: 50.53-62.30) for SAGES. In the IR group, CBDM confirmation by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) revealed: under ASGE (n = 108), E US detected CBDM in 52 (no stones: 13) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 19 (negative: 46), yielding 36.5% sensitivity; for ESGE (n = 93), EUS identified CBDM in 46 (no stones:9) vs. MRCP identified CBDM in 32 (negative: 25) at 69.6% sensitivity; per SAGES (n = 69), in the 43 receiving both modalities, EUS detected CBDM in 37 (no stones: 6) vs. MRCP detected CBDM in 14 (negative: 29) with 37.8% sensitivity.
Conclusion: We validated ASGE, ESGE, and SAGES for CBDM prediction but found suboptimal. EUS demonstrates superior sensitivity over MRCP for IR evaluation.
期刊介绍:
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology publishes papers reporting original clinical and scientific research which are of a high standard and which contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology.
The journal publishes three types of manuscript: in-depth reviews (by invitation only), full papers and case reports. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted on the understanding that the author has not previously submitted the paper to another journal or had the material published elsewhere. Authors are asked to disclose any affiliations, including financial, consultant, or institutional associations, that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest.