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

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:根据美国胃肠内镜学会(ASGE)、欧洲胃肠内镜学会(ESGE)和美国胃肠内镜外科医师学会(SAGES)的标准,疑似胆总管结石的患者分为高风险(HR)、中危(IR)和低危(LR)。本研究验证了胆总管微石症(CBDM)临床风险分层的实用性。方法:回顾性分析2017年11月至2024年5月期间疑似CBDM的病例。经肝功能检查、超声或计算机断层扫描后,所有患者根据ASGE、ESGE和SAGES分为HR、IR和LR。结果:269例HR患者中,ASGE诊断准确率为61.71%[95%可信区间(CI): 55.77 ~ 67.32], ESGE诊断准确率为60.59% (95% CI: 54.65 ~ 66.25), SAGES诊断准确率为56.51% (95% CI: 50.53 ~ 62.30)。在IR组,通过内镜超声(EUS)或磁共振胆管胰胆管造影(MRCP)确认CBDM显示:在ASGE (n = 108)下,E - US检测到CBDM的有52例(无结石的有13例),MRCP检测到CBDM的有19例(阴性的有46例),敏感性为36.5%;对于ESGE (n = 93), EUS识别出46例CBDM(无结石:9例),MRCP识别出32例CBDM(阴性:25例),敏感性为69.6%;根据SAGES (n = 69),在接受两种治疗方式的43例患者中,EUS检测到CBDM的有37例(无结石:6例),MRCP检测到CBDM的有14例(阴性:29例),灵敏度为37.8%。结论:我们验证了ASGE、ESGE和SAGES对CBDM的预测,但发现不理想。EUS对IR评价的敏感性优于MRCP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
269
审稿时长
1 months
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信