Assessment of The Factors Related to The Spontaneous Passage of Common Bile Duct Stones
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Population
2.2. Data Collection
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Buxbaum, J.L.; Abbas Fehmi, S.M.; Sultan, S.; Fishman, D.S.; Qumseya, B.J.; Cortessis, V.K.; Schilperoort, H.; Kysh, L.; Matsuoka, L.; Yachimski, P.; et al. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019, 89, 1075–1105.e1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miura, F.; Okamoto, K.; Takada, T.; Strasberg, S.M.; Asbun, H.J.; Pitt, H.A.; Gomi, H.; Solomkin, J.S.; Schlossberg, D.; Han, H.S.; et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: Initial management of acute biliary infection and flowchart for acute cholangitis. J. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Sci. 2018, 25, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Manes, G.; Paspatis, G.; Aabakken, L.; Anderloni, A.; Arvanitakis, M.; Ah-Soune, P.; Barthet, M.; Domagk, D.; Dumonceau, J.M.; Gigot, J.F.; et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 472–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kröner, P.T.; Bilal, M.; Samuel, R.; Umar, S.; Abougergi, M.S.; Lukens, F.J.; Raimondo, M.; Carr-Locke, D.L. Use of ERCP in the United States over the past decade. Endosc. Int. Open 2020, 8, E761–E769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dumonceau, J.M.; Kapral, C.; Aabakken, L.; Papanikolaou, I.S.; Tringali, A.; Vanbiervliet, G.; Beyna, T.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Hritz, I.; Mariani, A.; et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020, 52, 127–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, M.A.; Fisher, L.; Jain, R.; Evans, J.A.; Appalaneni, V.; Ben-Menachem, T.; Cash, B.D.; Decker, G.A.; Early, D.S.; Fanelli, R.D.; et al. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2012, 75, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dumonceau, J.M.; Andriulli, A.; Elmunzer, B.J.; Mariani, A.; Meister, T.; Deviere, J.; Marek, T.; Baron, T.H.; Hassan, C.; Testoni, P.A.; et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline–updated June 2014. Endoscopy 2014, 46, 799–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buxbaum, J.L.; Freeman, M.; Amateau, S.K.; Chalhoub, J.M.; Chowdhury, A.; Coelho-Prabhu, N.; Das, R.; Desai, M.; Elhanafi, S.E.; Forbes, N.; et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention strategies: Methodology and review of evidence. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2023, 97, 163–183.e140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, E.; Beckingham, I.; El Sayed, G.; Gurusamy, K.; Sturgess, R.; Webster, G.; Young, T. Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2017, 66, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandelia, A.; Gupta, A.K.; Verma, D.K.; Sharma, S. The Value of Magnetic Resonance Cholangio-Pancreatography (MRCP) in the Detection of Choledocholithiasis. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2013, 7, 1941–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohseni, S.; Bass, G.A.; Forssten, M.P.; Casas, I.M.; Martin, M.; Davis, K.A.; Haut, E.R.; Sugrue, M.; Kurihara, H.; Sarani, B.; et al. Common bile duct stones management: A network meta-analysis. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2022, 93, e155–e165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chandrasekhara, V.; Khashab, M.A.; Muthusamy, V.R.; Acosta, R.D.; Agrawal, D.; Bruining, D.H.; Eloubeidi, M.A.; Fanelli, R.D.; Faulx, A.L.; Gurudu, S.R.; et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017, 85, 32–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lefemine, V.; Morgan, R.J. Spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in jaundiced patients. Hepatobiliary Pancreat. Dis. Int. 2011, 10, 209–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, S.; Dong, S.; Zhu, H.; Wu, W.; Hu, Y.; Li, Q.; Zheng, S. Factors related to the spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones through the papilla: A single-center retrospective cohort study. J. Int. Med. Res. 2021, 49, 3000605211058381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khoury, T.; Adileh, M.; Imam, A.; Azraq, Y.; Bilitzky-Kopit, A.; Massarwa, M.; Benson, A.; Bahouth, Z.; Abu-Gazaleh, S.; Sbeit, W.; et al. Parameters Suggesting Spontaneous Passage of Stones from Common Bile Duct: A Retrospective Study. Can. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 2019, 5382708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanguanlosit, S.; Viriyaroj, V.; Yodying, H.; Rookkachart, T.; Sathornviriyapong, S.; Boonsinsukh, T. The influence of stone size on spontaneous passage of common bile duct stones in patients with acute cholangitis: A retrospective cohort study. Ann. Med. Surg. 2020, 60, 72–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boicean, A.; Birlutiu, V.; Ichim, C.; Todor, S.B.; Hasegan, A.; Bacila, C.; Solomon, A.; Cristian, A.; Dura, H. Predictors of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (P.E.P.) in Choledochal Lithiasis Extraction. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 1356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saito, H.; Iwasaki, H.; Itoshima, H.; Kadono, Y.; Shono, T.; Kamikawa, K.; Urata, A.; Nasu, J.; Uehara, M.; Matsushita, I.; et al. Low Detection Rates of Bile Duct Stones During Endoscopic Treatment for Highly Suspected Bile Duct Stones with No Imaging Evidence of Stones. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2023, 68, 2061–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buxbaum, J.L.; Buitrago, C.; Lee, A.; Elmunzer, B.J.; Riaz, A.; Ceppa, E.P.; Al-Haddad, M.; Amateau, S.K.; Calderwood, A.H.; Fishman, D.S.; et al. ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021, 94, 207–221.e214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.W.; Park, D.H.; Lee, J.H.; Oh, D.W.; Song, T.J.; Lee, S.S.; Seo, D.W.; Lee, S.K.; Kim, M.H.; Moon, J.E. Prevalence and Predictors of Unnecessary Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Two-Stage Endoscopic Stone Extraction Followed by Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2019, 23, 1578–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tranter, S.E.; Thompson, M.H. Spontaneous passage of bile duct stones: Frequency of occurrence and relation to clinical presentation. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2003, 85, 174–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frossard, J.L.; Hadengue, A.; Amouyal, G.; Choury, A.; Marty, O.; Giostra, E.; Sivignon, F.; Sosa, L.; Amouyal, P. Choledocholithiasis: A prospective study of spontaneous common bile duct stone migration. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2000, 51, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bill, J.G.; Kushnir, V.M.; Mullady, D.K.; Murad, F.M.; Azar, R.R.; Easler, J.J.; Early, D.S.; Edmundowicz, S.A. Evaluation of patients with abnormalities on intraoperative cholangiogram: Time to abandon endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the initial follow-up study. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2016, 7, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Spinn, M.P.; Wolf, D.S.; Verma, D.; Lukens, F.J. Prediction of which patients with an abnormal intraoperative cholangiogram will have a confirmed stone at ERCP. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2010, 55, 1479–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Whole Study | Spontaneous Passage | Non-Passage | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Group | Group | Group | ||
(n = 236) | (n = 26) | (n = 210) | ||
Age, years | 60.3 ± 17.52 | 52.69 ± 17.72 | 61.24 ± 17.31 | 0.019 |
Gender, male, n (%) | 109 (46.2) | 13 (50) | 96 (45.7) | 0.679 |
CCI | 2 (1–4) | 1 (0–3) | 2 (1–4) | 0.014 |
History of cholecystectomy, n (%) | 47 (19.9) | 6 (23.1) | 41 (19.5) | 0.669 |
Hb level (g/dL) | 13.55 (12.53–14.48) | 13.45 (12.68–14.35) | 13.6 (12.5–14.5) | 0.872 |
WBC count (109/L) | 8.6 (6.61–10.88) | 9.39 (7.29–11.68) | 8.56 (6.54–10.63) | 0.141 |
Platelet count (109/L) | 258 (216–308.5) | 274 (215.5–320.75) | 257 (215–305.5) | 0.532 |
Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 2.45 (1.1–4.3) | 2.6 (0.88–4.08) | 2.4 (1.1–4.4) | 0.435 |
Direct bilirubin (mg/dL) | 1.5 (0.5–2.9) | 1.4 (0.4–2.25) | 1.5 (0.5–3) | 0.379 |
Amylase (U/L) | 65.5 (45–127) | 98.5 (40.25–728.5) | 64 (45–119.25) | 0.230 |
Lipase (U/L) | 42 (30–94.25) | 54.5 (31.5–360.5) | 41 (30–82) | 0.217 |
AST (U/L) | 149 (56.25–297.75) | 125.5 (54.5–311.5) | 150 (56.5–297.25) | 0.837 |
ALT (U/L) | 197.5 (66.25–346) | 146.5 (86–312.75) | 203.5 (60.5–346.5) | 0.708 |
GGT (U/L) | 363 (175–649) | 270.5 (169.75–647) | 371.5 (173.5–650.5) | 0.322 |
ALP (U/L) | 214 (128–320) | 176 (119.25–258) | 216 (130.5–323) | 0.153 |
CRP (mg/L) | 14.5 (5.27–66.95) | 11.3 (5.83–75.8) | 15.2 (5.12–66.38) | 0.966 |
Distal CBD stones in MRCP, n (%) | 147 (62.3) | 17 (65.4) | 130 (61.9) | 0.730 |
Number of CBD stones in MRCP, n (%) | 0.047 | |||
Single | 111 (47) | 17 (65.4) | 94 (44.8) | |
Multiple | 125 (53) | 9 (34.6) | 116 (55.2) | |
CBD diameter in MRCP (mm) | 11 (9–13) | 10 (7–12.25) | 11 (9–13) | 0.237 |
CBD stone diameter in MRCP (mm) | 7 (5–8) | 4 (3–7) | 7 (5–8) | <0.001 |
CBD dilatation in MRCP, n (%) | 205 (86.9) | 23 (88.5) | 182 (86.7) | 1 |
Whole Study Group (n = 236) | Spontaneous Passage Group (n = 26) | Non-Passage Group (n = 210) | p | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Length of hospital stay, days | 7 (6–11) | 7 (5–11.5) | 7 (6–11) | 0.834 |
Time from hospital arrival to ERCP, days | 4.5 (3–6) | 5 (3–6) | 4 (3–6) | 0.949 |
Time from ERCP to discharge, days | 3 (1–5) | 3 (1–5) | 3 (1–5) | 0.949 |
ERCP successes, n (%) | 236 (100) | 26 (100) | 210 (100) | - |
ERCP complications, n (%) | 27 (11.4) | 2 (7.7) | 25 (11.9) | 0.748 |
Pancreatitis | 24 (10.2) | 2 (7.7) | 22 (10.5) | 1 |
Bleeding | 3 (1.3) | - | 3 (1.4) | 1 |
Perforation | 2 (0.8) | - | 2 (1) | 1 |
Need for ICU follow-up, n (%) | 3 (1.3) | - | 3 (1.4) | 1 |
Mortality, n (%) | 1 (0.4) | - | 1 (0.5) | 1 |
Univariate Analysis | Multivariate Analysis | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
95% CI | 95% CI | |||||||
OR | Lower | Upper | p | OR | Lower | Upper | p | |
Age | 0.973 | 0.950 | 0.996 | 0.021 | 0.993 | 0.946 | 1.042 | 0.779 |
Gender | - | - | - | - | ||||
Female | 1 | - | - | - | ||||
Male | 1.187 | 0.525 | 2.684 | 0.680 | ||||
CCI | 0.747 | 0.578 | 0.965 | 0.026 | 0.888 | 0.537 | 1.467 | 0.643 |
History of cholecystectomy | 1.237 | 0.467 | 3.275 | 0.669 | - | - | - | - |
Hb level | 0.977 | 0.777 | 1.227 | 0.840 | - | - | - | - |
WBC count | 1.066 | 0.971 | 1.170 | 0.177 | - | - | - | - |
Platelet count | 1.002 | 0.998 | 1.006 | 0.345 | - | - | - | - |
Total bilirubin | 0.905 | 0.755 | 1.086 | 0.284 | - | - | - | - |
Direct bilirubin | 0.843 | 0.649 | 1.095 | 0.201 | - | - | - | - |
Amylase | 1 | 1 | 1.001 | 0.274 | - | - | - | - |
Lipase | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.639 | - | - | - | - |
AST | 0.999 | 0.997 | 1.001 | 0.568 | - | - | - | - |
ALT | 0.999 | 0.997 | 1.001 | 0.474 | - | - | - | - |
GGT | 0.999 | 0.998 | 1.001 | 0.291 | - | - | - | - |
ALP | 0.998 | 0.995 | 1.001 | 0.188 | - | - | - | - |
CRP | 1 | 0.993 | 1.008 | 0.951 | - | - | - | - |
Distal CBD stones in MRCP | 1.162 | 0.495 | 2.732 | 0.730 | - | - | - | - |
Number of CBD stones in MRCP | 0.486 | 0.201 | 1.175 | 0.109 | ||||
Single | ||||||||
Multiple | 1 | - | - | - | ||||
0.429 | 0.183 | 1.006 | 0.052 | |||||
CBD diameter in MRCP | 0.916 | 0.802 | 1.048 | 0.202 | - | - | - | - |
CBD stone diameter in MRCP | 0.742 | 0.609 | 0.904 | 0.003 | 0.787 | 0.642 | 0.963 | 0.020 |
CBD dilatation in MRCP | 1.179 | 0.332 | 4.188 | 0.798 | - | - | - | - |
Time from hospital arrival to ERCP | 0.983 | 0.867 | 1.115 | 0.792 | - | - | - | - |
95% CI | Cut-Off Value | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AUC | Lower | Upper | p | Sensitivity | Specificity | ||
CBD stone diameter in MRCP | 0.727 | 0.600 | 0.854 | <0.001 | 4.3 | 0.577 | 0.852 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
İnan, B.; Akbay, A.; Güven, İ.E.; Ersoy, O. Assessment of The Factors Related to The Spontaneous Passage of Common Bile Duct Stones. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2672. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092672
İnan B, Akbay A, Güven İE, Ersoy O. Assessment of The Factors Related to The Spontaneous Passage of Common Bile Duct Stones. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(9):2672. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092672
Chicago/Turabian Styleİnan, Bayram, Ahmet Akbay, İbrahim Ethem Güven, and Osman Ersoy. 2024. "Assessment of The Factors Related to The Spontaneous Passage of Common Bile Duct Stones" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 9: 2672. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092672
APA Styleİnan, B., Akbay, A., Güven, İ. E., & Ersoy, O. (2024). Assessment of The Factors Related to The Spontaneous Passage of Common Bile Duct Stones. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(9), 2672. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13092672