Background Recent guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommend risk stratification according to liver function test (LFT) and abdominal ultrasound in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. We evaluated and validated the clinical utility of these new risk stratification criteria for choledocholithiasis. Methods We retrospectively analyzed prospectively maintained data of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis between January 2016 and December 2018 in patients undergoing cholecystectomy. Patients with common bile duct stricture, cirrhosis, and portal biliopathy were excluded. After LFT and ultrasound, all patients were stratified according to ESGE and ASGE criteria into high, intermediate, and low likelihood of choledocholithiasis. Results 1042 patients were analyzed. Using ESGE guidelines, 213 patients (20.4 %) met high likelihood criteria, 637 (61.1 %) met intermediate, and 192 (18.4 %) met low likelihood criteria. Using ASGE guidelines, 230 (22.1 %), 678 (65.1 %), and 134 (12.9 %) met high, intermediate, and low likelihood criteria, respectively. Specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of ASGE high likelihood criteria were 96.87 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 95.37 – 97.98) and 89.57 % (95 %CI 85.20 – 92.75) for choledocholithiasis compared with 98.96 % (95 %CI 97.95 – 99.55) and 96.24 % (95 %CI 92.76 – 98.09), respectively, for ESGE criteria. ASGE classified 17 (7.4 %) additional patients as high likelihood compared with ESGE, only one of whom had choledocholithiasis. ASGE classified 58 (8.6 %) additional patients as intermediate, none of whom had choledocholithiasis. Conclusion This study validates the clinical utility of new ESGE and ASGE criteria for predicting choledocholithiasis. ESGE risk stratification appears more specific than ASGE.

Background and Aim: Hemosuccus pancreaticus is considered as one of the rare cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Intermittent nature of bleeding and lack of standardized approach for diagnosis has resulted in significant delay in definitive management. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed prospectively maintained data of patients with suspected hemosuccus pancreaticus between January 2010 and December 2019. Results: Out of 114 patients, 87 patients were diagnosed with hemosuccus pancreaticus. Mean age was 35.7 ± 11.7 years with 89.7% men. Median duration of bleeding before diagnosis was 10 days, with 40.2%, 10.3%, and 5.7% patients had symptoms beyond 1, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Visceral artery aneurysm was noted in 62% of cases with splenic artery aneurysm (37.9%) being the common source of bleed. Rarer causes noted were superior mesenteric artery aneurysm, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (2.3% each). Santorinirrhage was seen in 3.4% patients. Endoscopic diagnosis was possible in 64.4% of patients, and angiogram localization of bleeding source was noted in 94.2%. A 56.3% of patients underwent conventional angioembolization with 95.9% success and 28.7% underwent surgery, with overall rebleeding rate of 11.5%. Conclusions: Early diagnosis of hemosuccus pancreaticus avoids prolonged suffering, multiple hospital admissions, and multiple blood transfusions. It is not uncommon in the absence of aneurysm. In cases of high suspicion, repeating the endoscopy with proper technique and proper timing increases the yield. Angioembolization remains the most preferred first line therapeutic approach in majority of cases.

Background Recently updated guidelines for choledocholithiasis stratify suspected patients into high, intermediate, and low likelihood, with the aim to reduce risk of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. This approach has increased proportion of patients in intermediate likelihood making it heterogenous. We aim to substratify intermediate group so that diagnostic tests (endoscopic ultrasound/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography) are judicially used. Methods This is a single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data. We used subset of patients who met intermediate likelihood of American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) criteria from previously published data (PMID:32106321) as derivation cohort. Binominal logistic regression analysis was used to define independent predictors of choledocholithiasis. A composite score was derived by allotting 1 point for presence of each independent predictor. The diagnostic performance of a composite score of ≥ 1 was evaluated in validation cohort. Results A total of 678 (mean age [standard deviation]: 47.0 [15.9] years; 48.1% men) and 162 (mean age 47.8 [14.8] years; 47.4% men) patients in ASGE intermediate-likelihood group were included as derivation cohort and validation cohort, respectively. Binominal logistic regression analysis showed that male gender (p = 0.024; odds ratio [OR] = 1.92), raised bilirubin (p = 0.001; OR = 2.40), and acute calculus cholecystitis (p = 0.010; OR = 2.04) were independent predictors for choledocholithiasis. A composite score was derived by allotting 1 point for presence of independent predictors Using ≥ 1 as cutoff, sensitivity and specificity for detection of choledocholithiasis were 80% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.2–88.9) and 36.2% (95% CI: 32.2–40.0), respectively, in derivation cohort. Applying composite score in independent validation cohort showed sensitivity and specificity of 73.3% (95% CI: 44.9–92.2) and 40.1% (95% CI: 30.1–48.5), respectively. Conclusion Substratification of intermediate-likelihood group of ASGE criteria is feasible. It may be useful in deciding in whom confirmatory tests should be performed with priority and in whom watchful waiting may be sufficient.

No abstract

including 108 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with >13000 patients. Interesting the rate of PEP varied with geographical location with different incidence of PEP of 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. [1] This makes this study very important showing the clinical profile and outcomes of Indian patients. This may serve as guidance and reference source for Indian physicians and gastroenterologists.