Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EUS Yield in Evaluating Biliary Dilatation in Patients with Normal Serum Liver Enzymes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The finding of common bile duct (CBD) dilatation on abdominal imaging frequently results in additional testing. It has been our impression that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluation of a dilated CBD is a low-yield examination in the setting of normal serum liver enzymes. We therefore sought to evaluate the EUS yield in evaluating CBD dilatation in patients with normal as compared to elevated serum liver enzymes. A retrospective review was performed to identify patients referred for EUS evaluation of a dilated CBD in the absence of obvious pathology on prior imaging. Charts were reviewed for patient symptoms, presence of elevated serum liver enzymes, imaging studies before EUS, and EUS findings. Exclusion criteria included clinical jaundice, known biliary stricture, mass lesion or stone, and previously sphincterotomy and/or stent placement. Forty-seven patients were identified: 32 with normal and 15 with elevated serum liver enzymes. There was no difference in mean CBD diameter between these two groups (8.51 vs. 8.79 mm, p=0.854). Of the entire group, 15 patients had undergone prior magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP); an additional 7 patients had undergone prior endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). EUS findings to explain CBD dilatation were found more commonly in patients with elevated compared with normal serum liver enzymes (53% vs. 6%, p=0.001). Periampullary diverticula and choledocholithiasis were the most common findings; of 32 patients with normal serum liver enzymes, one periampullary diverticulum and one CBD stone were found, respectively. The CBD stone had been missed by prior MRCP examination. Of 15 patients with elevated serum liver enzymes, there were 3 cases of choledocholithiasis, 4 periampullary diverticula, and 1 ampullary tumor. EUS should be the test of choice for further evaluation of CBD dilatation when index imaging is normal. Although the EUS yield is low in cases of biliary dilatation in the setting of normal serum liver enzymes, its preferential use would potentially avoid unnecessary MRCP and ERCP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bowie JD (2000) What is the upper limit of normal for the common bile duct on ultrasound: how much do you want it to be? Am J Gastroenterol 95:897–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Perret RS, Sloop GD, Borne JA (2000) Common bile duct measurements in an elderly population. J Ultrasound Med 19:727–730

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Parulekar SG (2002) Transabdominal sonography of bile ducts. Ultrasound Q 18:187–202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kim JE, Lee JK, Lee KT, Park DI, Hyun JG, Paik SW, Rhee JC, Choi KW, Lim JH (2001) The clinical significance of common bile duct dilatation in patients without biliary symptoms or causative lesions on ultrasonography. Endoscopy 33:495–500

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen S, Bacon BR, Berlin JA, Fleischer D, Hecht GA, Loehrer PJ Sr, McNair AE Jr, Mulholland M, Norton NJ, Rabeneck L, Ransohoff DF, Sonnenberg A, Vannier MW (2002) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: ERCP for diagnosis and therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 56:803–809

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chen WX, Zhang Y, Li YM, Xu GQ, Fang Y, Cai SP (2002) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in evaluation of choledochal dilatation in patients with obstructive jaundice. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 1:111–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mallery JS, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, et al., Standards of Practice Committee, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (2003) Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 57:633–638

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J (2004) Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 60:721–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Adler DG, Baron TH, Davila RE, et al., Standards of Practice Committee of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (2005) ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 62:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wallace MB, Hawes RH, Durkalski V, Chak A, Mallery S, Catalano MF, Wiersema MJ, Bhutani MS, Ciaccia D, Kochman ML, Gress FG, van Velse A, Hoffman BJ (2001) The reliability of EUS for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis: interobserver agreement among experienced endosonographers. Gastrointest Endosc 53:294–299

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Buscarini E, Tansini P, Vallisa D, Zambelli A, Buscarini L (2003) EUS for suspected choledocholithiasis: do benefits outweigh costs? A prospective, controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 57:510–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Norton SA, Alderson D (1997) Prospective comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the detection of bile duct stones. Br J Surg 84:1366–1369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Amouyal P, Amouyal G, Levy P, Tuzet S, Palazzo L, Vilgrain V, Gayer B, Belghiti J, Fekete F, Bernades P (1994) Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gastroenterology 106:1062–1067

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kats J, Kraai M, Dijkstra AJ, Koster K, Ter Borg F, Hazenberg JH, Eeftinck Schattenkerk M, des Plantes BG, Eddes EH (2003) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography as a diagnostic tool for common bile duct stones: a comparison with ERCP and clinical follow-up. Dig Surg 20:32–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Varghese JC, Farrell MA, Courtney G, Osborne H, Murray FE, Lee MJ (1999) A prospective comparison of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the evaluation of patients with suspected biliary tract disease. Clin Radiol 54:513–520

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sugiyama M, Atomi Y (1997) Endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosing choledocholithiasis: a prospective comparative study with ultrasonography and computed tomography. Gastrointest Endosc 45:143–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Yusuf TE, Bhutani MS (2004) Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in diseases of the extrahepatic biliary system. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 19:243–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tierney WM, Francis IR, Eckhauser F, Elta G, Nostrant TT, Scheiman JM (2001) The accuracy of EUS and helical CT in the assessment of vascular invasion by peripapillary malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc 53:182–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cannon ME, Carpenter SL, Elta GH, Nostrant TT, Kochman ML, Ginsberg GG, Stotland B, Rosato EF, Morris JB, Eckhauser F, Scheiman JM (1999) EUS compared with CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography and the influence of biliary stenting on staging accuracy of ampullary neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 50:27–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. de Ledinghen V, Lecesne R, Raymond JM, Gense V, Amouretti M, Drouillard J, Couzigou P, Silvain C (1999) Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: EUS or magnetic resonance cholangiography? A prospective controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 49:26–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Scheiman JM, Carlos RC, Barnett JL, Elta GH, Nostrant TT, Chey WD, Francis IR, Nandi PS (2001) Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 96:2900–2904

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Kay CL (2003) Which test to replace diagnostic ERCP—MRCP or EUS? Endoscopy 35:426–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lobo DN, Balfour TW, Iftikhar SY, Rowlands BJ (1999) Periampullary diverticula and pancreaticobiliary disease. Br J Surg 86:588–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Won JI, Chun JH, Kim HJ, et al. (1997) A study of 162 cases of peri-ampullary diverticulum. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 17:778–788

    Google Scholar 

  25. Rajnakova A, Goh PM, Ngoi SS, Lim SG (2003) ERCP in patients with periampullary diverticulum. Hepatogastroenterology 50:625–628

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rolny P, Geenen JE, Hogan WJ (1993) Post-cholecystectomy patients with "objective signs" of partial bile outflow obstruction: clinical characteristics, sphincter of Oddi manometry findings, and results of therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 39:778–781

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

    Shahid Malik, Neeraj Kaushik, Asif Khalid, Kathy Bauer, Debra Brody, Adam Slivka & Kevin McGrath

  2. University of Pittsburgh, Center for Liver Diseases, Kaufmann Medical Building, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 916, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

    Shahid Malik

Authors
  1. Shahid Malik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neeraj Kaushik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Asif Khalid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathy Bauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Debra Brody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Adam Slivka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kevin McGrath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shahid Malik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Malik, S., Kaushik, N., Khalid, A. et al. EUS Yield in Evaluating Biliary Dilatation in Patients with Normal Serum Liver Enzymes. Dig Dis Sci 52, 508–512 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-006-9582-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-006-9582-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation