The effects of efficient usage of endosonography in the daily medical practice of gastroenterology

Öz

Background and Aims: Our aim was to evaluate the efficient use of endosonography in the daily practice of gastroenterology. Material and Methods: Our study was done retrospectively in a tertiary hospital. Data including patient demographics, diagnosis, duration of hospital stay, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure, and radiologic diagnostic tests were evaluated between June 2008 and June 2009 (Period 1) and between June 2009 and June 2010 (Period 2). Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rates, biliary tract evaluation rates with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, cytologic sampling rates from pancreatic masses, diagnostic rates of chronic pancreatitis, and duration of hospital stay of acute biliary pancreatitis patients were compared between the two periods. Results: Endoscopic ultrasound was performed in 187 and 2027 patients in Periods 1 and 2, respectively. The ratios of therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were 71.3% and 90.7% and the numbers of patients requiring magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were 617 and 29 in Periods 1 and 2, respectively. Biopsy was conducted with transabdominal US in 24 of 81 patients in Period 1; tissue sampling was done with linear endosonography in 155 of 187 patients in Period 2. The numbers of patients with recently diagnosed chronic pancreatitis in Periods 1 and 2 were 8 and 51, respectively; the mean hospital stays of acute biliary pancreatitis patients were 11.6 ± 5.4 and 7.8 ± 4.5 days, respectively. Conclusions: In this study, we determined that the efficient use of endosonography increases the therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography rates, the diagnostic rates of chronic pancreatitis patients and the tissue diagnostic rates of pancreatic masses; it also diminishes the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography appointment time and the hospitalization duration of acute biliary pancreatitis patients. We believe that endosonography should be the responsibility of only one physician in a clinic in order to increase their experience.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Endosonography, gastroenterology, practice guideline

Endosonografinin etkin kullanımının gastroenteroloji günlük tıbbi pratiğine etkileri

Öz

Giriş ve Amaç: Endosonografinin etkin kullanımının gastroenteroloji günlük pratiğine etkilerini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamız, tersiyer bir hastanede retrospektif olarak yapıldı. Haziran 2007Haziran 2008 (Dönem 1) ve Haziran 2009Haziran 2010 (Dönem 2) arasında hasta demografikleri, tanıları, yatış gün sayısı, endoskopik retrograd kolanjiyopankreatografi işlemi, radyolojik tanı yöntemleri kullanılan hastalara ait veriler değerlendirildi. Dönemlere göre; terapötik endoskopik retrograd kolanjiyopankreatografi oranları, manyetik rezonans kolanjiyopankreatografi ile safra yolu değerlendirme oranları, pankreas kitlelerinden sitolojik örnekleme oranları, kronik pankreatit tanı oranları, akut biliyer pankreatitli hastalarda hastane yatış süreleri karşılaştırıldı. Bulgular: Dönem 1'de 187, dönem 2'de 2027 endosonografi işlemi yapıldı. Terapötik endoskopik retrograd kolanjiyopankreatografi oranı Dönem 1 ve 2'de sırasıyla %71,3 ve %90,7; manyetik rezonans kolanjiyopankreatografi gereken hasta sayısı 617 ve 29 idi. Dönem 1'de 81 hastanın 24'ünde transabdominal ultrasonografi ile biyopsi alındı, Dönem 2'de 187 hastanın 155'inde lineer endosonografi ile doku örneklemesi yapıldı. Yeni tanı konulan kronik pankreatitli hasta sayısı Dönem 1 ve 2'de sırasıyla 8 ve 51 hasta; akut biliyer pankreatitli hastaların ortalama yatış günü 11,6 ± 5,4 gün ve 7,8 ± 4,5 gün idi. Sonuç: Bu çalışmada, endosonografinin etkin kullanımının terapötik endoskopik retrograd kolanjiyopankreatografi oranını, kronik pankreatit tanı koyma oranını, pankreatik kitlelerde doku tanısı koyma oranını arttırdığını, endoskopik retrograd kolanjiyopankreatografi randevu gününü ve akut biliyer pankreatitli hastalarda yatış süresini kısalttığını saptadık. Etkin endosonografi kullanımı için, bir hekimin sadece endosonografi ile ilgilenmesi ve endosonografi tecrübesini arttırması gerektiğini düşünmekteyiz.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Endosonografi, gastroenteroloji, pratik ana hatlar

Kaynakça

1. Hawes R, Fockens P. Endosonography. 2002. Second edition. Saunders Elsevier. 27-28.
2. Park DH, Lee SS, Moon SH, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus conventional transmural drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts: a prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 842-8.
3. Sanders MK, Moser AJ, Khalid A et al. EUS-guided fiducial placement for stereotactic body radiotherapy in locally advanced and recurrent pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1178-84. Epub 2010 Apr 1.
4. Iglesias-Garcia J, Larino-Noia J, Abdulkader I, et al. Quantitative endoscopic ultrasound elastography: an accurate method for the differentiation of solid pancreatic masses. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1172-80. Epub 2010 Jun 27.
5. Liu CL, Lo CM, Chan JK, et al. Detection of choledocholithiasis by EUS in acute pancreatitis: a prospective evalution in 100 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 325-30.
6. Makary MA, Duncan MD, Harmon JW, et al. The role of magnetic resonance cholangiography in the management of patients with gallstone pancreatitis. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 119-24.
7. Aljebreen A, Azzam N, Eloubeidi MA. Prospective study of endoscopic ultrasound performance in suspected choledocholithiasis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 741-5.
8. Napoléon B, Dumortier J, Keriven-Souquet O , et al. Do normal findings at biliary endoscopic ultrasonography obviate the need for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspicion of common bile duct stone? A prospective follow-up study of 238 patients. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 411-5.

9. Buscarini E, Tansini P, Vallisa D et al. EUS for suspected choledocholithiasis: do benefits outweigh costs? A prospective, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 510-8.
10. Saifuku Y, Yamagata M, Koike T et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography can diagnose distal biliary strictures without a mass on computed tomography. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 237-44.
11. Rösch T, Meining A, Frühmorgen S et al. A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP, MRCP, CT, and EUS in biliary strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 870-4.
12. Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariete analysis of 11497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009: 70; 80-8.
13. Choueiri NE, Balci NC, Alkaade S, Burton FR. Advanced imaging of chronic pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2010; 12: 114-20.
14. Morris-Stiff G, Webster P, Frost B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound reliably identifies chronic pancreatitis when other imaging modalities have been non-diagnostic. JOP 2009; 10: 280-3.
15. Catalano MF, Sahai A, Levy M, et al. EUS-based criteria for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis: the Rosemont classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 1251-61.
16. Varadarajulu S, Eloubeidi MA. The role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the evaluation of pancreatico-biliary cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2010; 90: 251-63.
17. Gress FG, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, et al. Role of EUS in the preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer: a large single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 786-91.
18. Aslanian H, Salem R, Lee J, et al. EUS diagnosis of vascular invasion in pancreatic cancer: surgical and histologic correlates. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1381-5.
19. Alekxakis N, Lombard M, Raraty M, et al. When is pancreatitis considered to be of biliary origin and what are the implications for management? Pancreatology 2007: 7; 131-41.
20. Stabuc B, Drobne D, Ferkolj I, et al. Acute biliary pancreatitis: detection of common bile duct stones with endoscopic ultrasound. Eur J of Gastroenterol Hepat 2008; 20: 1171-5.
21. Levy MJ, Topazian MD, Wiersema MJ, et al. Initial evaluation of the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided direct Ganglia neurolysis and block. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 98103.