Modifiable Factors Associated with Quality of Bowel Preparation Among Hospitalized Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

Article Type
Changed
Sun, 05/26/2019 - 00:04

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) at the time of inpatient colonoscopy is common and associated with increased length of stay and cost of care.1 The factors that contribute to IBP can be categorized into those that are modifiable and those that are nonmodifiable. While many factors have been associated with IBP, studies have been limited by small sample size or have combined inpatient/outpatient populations, thus limiting generalizability.1-5 Moreover, most factors associated with IBP, such as socioeconomic status, male gender, increased age, and comorbidities, are nonmodifiable. No studies have explicitly focused on modifiable risk factors, such as medication use, colonoscopy timing, or assessed the potential impact of modifying these factors.

In a large, multihospital system, we examine the frequency of IBP among inpatients undergoing colonoscopy along with factors associated with IBP. We attempted to identify modifiable risk factors that were associated with IBP.

METHODS

After obtaining Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board approval, records of all adult (≥18 years) inpatients undergoing colonoscopy between January 2011 and June 2017 were obtained. Patients with colonoscopy reports lacking a description of the bowel preparation quality and colonoscopies performed in the intensive care unit were excluded. For each patient, we considered only the first inpatient colonoscopy if more than one occurred during the study period.

Potential Predictors of IBP

Demographic data such as patient age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and insurance/payor status were obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). International Classification of Disease 9th and 10th revision, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9/10-CM) codes were used to obtain patient comorbidities including diabetes, coronary artery disease, heart failure, cirrhosis, gastroparesis, hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, constipation, stroke, dementia, dysphagia, and nausea/vomiting. Use of opioid medications within three days before colonoscopy was extracted from the medication administration record. These variables were chosen as biologically plausible modifiers of bowel preparation or had previously been assessed in the literature.1-6 The name and volume, classified as 4 L (GoLytely®) and < 4 liters (MoviPrep®) of bowel preparation, time of day when colonoscopy was performed, solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy, type of sedation used (conscious sedation or general anesthesia), and total colonoscopy time (defined as the time from scope insertion to removal) was recorded. Hospitalization-related variables, including the number of hospitalizations in the year before the current hospitalization, the year in which the colonoscopy was performed, and the number of days from admission to colonoscopy, were also obtained from the EHR.

 

 

Outcome Measures

An internally validated natural language algorithm, using Structured Queried Language was used to search through colonoscopy reports to identify adequacy of bowel preparation. ProVation® software allows the gastroenterologist to use some terms to describe bowel preparation in a drop-down menu format. In addition to the Aronchik scale (which allows the gastroenterologist to rate bowel preparation on a five-point scale: “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “inadequate”) it also allows the provider to use terms such as “adequate” or “adequate to detect polyps >5 mm” as well as “unsatisfactory.”7 Mirroring prior literature, bowel preparation quality was classified into “adequate” and “inadequate”; “good” and “excellent” on the Aronchik scale were categorized as adequate as was the term “adequate” in any form; “fair,” “poor,” or “inadequate” on the Aronchik scale were classified as inadequate as was the term “unsatisfactory.” We evaluated the hospital length of stay (LOS) as a secondary outcome measure.

Statistical Analysis

After describing the frequency of IBP, the quality of bowel preparation (adequate vs inadequate) was compared based on the predictors described above. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies with percentages and continuous variables were reported as medians with 25th-75th percentile values. The significance of the difference between the proportion or median values of those who had inadequate versus adequate bowel preparation was assessed. Two-sided chi-square analysis was used to assess the significance of differences between categorical variables and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was used to assess the significance of differences between continuous variables.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with hospital predictors and outcomes, after adjusting for all the aforementioned factors and clustering the effect based on the endoscopist. To evaluate the potential impact of modifiable factors on IBP, we performed counterfactual analysis, in which the observed distribution was compared to a hypothetical population in which all the modifiable risk factors were optimal.

RESULTS

Overall, 8,819 patients were included in our study population. They had a median age of 64 [53-76] years; 50.5% were female and 51% had an IBP. Patient characteristics and rates of IBP are presented in Table 1.

In unadjusted analyses, with regards to modifiable factors, opiate use within three days of colonoscopy was associated with a higher rate of IBP (55.4% vs 47.3%, P <.001), as was a lower volume (<4L) bowel preparation (55.3% vs 50.4%, P = .003). IBP was less frequent when colonoscopy was performed before noon vs afternoon (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001), and when patients were documented to receive a clear liquid diet or nil per os vs a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001). Overall bowel preparation quality improved over time (Figure 1). Median LOS was five [3-11] days. Patients who had IBP on their initial colonoscopy had a LOS one day longer than patients without IBP (six days vs five days, P < .001).

Multivariate Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the multivariate analysis. The following modifiable factors were associated with IBP: opiate used within three days of the procedure (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.8, 1.45), having the colonoscopy performed after12:00 pm (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10, 1.41), and consuming a solid diet the day prior to the colonoscopy (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.59). However, the volume of bowel preparation was not associated with IBP. The selected nonmodifiable factors that were found to be associated with IBP included age (increment of five years; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.05), male gender (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.23, 1.44), Medicare insurance (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), gastroparesis (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16, 2.27), nausea/vomiting (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09, 1.34), and dysphagia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.34).

 

 

Potential Impact of Modifiable Variables

We conducted a counterfactual analysis based on a multivariate model to assess the impact of each modifiable risk factor on the IBP rate (Figure 1). In the included study population, 44.9% received an opiate, 39.3% had a colonoscopy after 12:00 pm, and 9.1% received solid food the day prior to the procedure. Holding all other factors constant, if all patients were not prescribed opiates within three days of the procedure a 2.9% reduction in IBP would be expected. Similarly, if all patients underwent colonoscopy before noon, a 2.1% reduction in IBP rate would be expected. A 0.7% reduction would be expected if all patients were maintained on a liquid diet or nil per os. Combined, instituting all these changes (no opiates or solid diet before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon) would produce a 5.6% reduction in IBP rate.

DISCUSSION

In this large, multihospital cohort, IBP was documented in half (51%) of 8,819 inpatient colonoscopies performed. Nonmodifiable patient characteristics independently associated with IBP were age, male gender, white race, Medicare and Medicaid insurance, nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis. Modifiable factors included not consuming opiates within three days of colonoscopy, avoidance of a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy and performing the colonoscopy before noon. The volume of bowel preparation consumed was not associated with IBP. In a counterfactual analysis, we found that if all three modifiable factors were optimized, the predicted rate of IBP would drop to 45%.

Many studies, including our analysis, have shown significant differences between the frequency of IBP in inpatient versus outpatient bowel preparations.8-11 Therefore, it is crucial to study IBP in these settings separately. Three single-institution studies, including a total of 898 patients, have identified risk factors for inpatient IBP. Individual studies ranged in size from 130 to 524 patients with rates of IBP ranging from 22%-57%.1-3 They found IBP to be associated with increasing age, lower income, ASA Grade >3, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), nausea or vomiting, BMI >25, and chronic constipation. Modifiable factors included opiates, afternoon procedures, and runway times >6 hours.

We also found IBP to be associated with increasing age and male gender. However, we found no association with diabetes, chronic constipation, CAD or BMI. As we were able to adjust for a wider variety of variables, it is possible that we were able to account for residual confounding better than previous studies. For example, we found that having nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis was associated with IBP. Gastroparesis with associated nausea and vomiting may be the mechanism by which diabetes increases the risk for IBP. Further studies are needed to assess if interventions or alternative bowel cleansing in these patients can result in improved IBP. Finally, in contrast to studies with smaller cohorts which found that lower volume bowel preps improved IBP in the right colon,4,12 we found no association between IBP based and volume of bowel preparation consumed. Our impact analysis suggests that avoidance of opiates for at least three days before colonoscopy, avoidance of solid diet on the day before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon would reduce the rate of IBP by 5.6%. While at first glance this does not appear to be a significant change, from a public health perspective with thousands of inpatient colonoscopies performed every year, it is crucial. We found that IBP was associated with an increased inpatient LOS of approximately one day. Assuming an average cost of one hospital day to be $2,000,13 this 5.6% improvement among our almost 9,000 patients, would translate into eliminating 494 unnecessary hospital days, or approximately $1 million in savings. More importantly, this savings comes without risk to patients and would result in an improvement in quality.

The factors mentioned above may not always be amenable to modification. For example, for patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding, postponing colonoscopy by one day for the sake of maintaining a patient on a clear diet may not be feasible. Similarly, performing colonoscopies in the morning is highly dependent on endoscopy suite availability and hospital logistics. Denying opiates to patients experiencing severe pain is not ethical. In many scenarios, however, these variables could be modified, and institutional efforts to support these practices could yield considerable savings. Future prospective studies are needed to verify the real impact of these changes.

Further discussion is needed to contextualize the finding that colonoscopies scheduled in the afternoon are associated with improved bowel preparation quality. Previous research—albeit in the outpatient setting—has demonstrated 11.8 hours as the maximum upper time limit for the time elapsed between the end of bowel preparation to colonoscopy.14 Another study found an inverse relationship between the quality of bowel preparation and the time after completion of the bowel preparation.15 This makes sense from a physiological perspective as delaying the time between completion of bowel preparation, and the procedure allows chyme from the small intestine to reaccumulate in the colon. Anecdotally, at our institution as well as at many others, the bowel preparations are ordered to start in the evening to allow the consumption of complete bowel preparation by midnight. As a result of this practice, only patients who have their colonoscopies scheduled before noon fall within the optimal period of 11.8 hours. In the outpatient setting, the use of split preparations has led to the obliteration of the difference in the quality of bowel preparation between morning and afternoon colonoscopies.16 Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the use of split preparations to improve the quality of afternoon inpatient colonoscopies.



Few other strategies have been shown to mitigate IBP in the inpatient setting. In a small randomized controlled trial, Ergen et al. found that providing an educational booklet improved inpatient bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.17 In a quasi-experimental design, Yadlapati et al. found that an automated split-dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased IBP, fewer repeated procedures, shorter LOS, and lower hospital cost.18 Our study adds to these tools by identifying three additional risk factors which could be optimized for inpatients. Because our findings are observational, they should be subjected to prospective trials. Our study also calls into question the impact of bowel preparation volume. We found no difference in the rate of IBP between low and large volume preparations. It is possible that other factors are more important than the specific preparation employed. Information regarding the use of split preparations or same day preparations was not recorded and therefore not assessed in our study.

Interestingly, we found that IBP declined substantially in 2014 and continued to decline after that. The year was the most influential risk factor for IBP (on par with gastroparesis). The reason for this is unclear, as rates of our modifiable risk factors did not differ substantially by year. Other possibilities include improved access (including weekend access) to endoscopy coinciding with the development of a new endoscopy facility and use of integrated irrigation pump system instead of the use of manual syringes for flushing.

Our study has many strengths. It is by far the most extensive study of bowel preparation quality in inpatients to date and the only one that has included patient, procedural and bowel preparation characteristics. The study also has several significant limitations. This is a single center study, which could limit generalizability. Nonetheless, it was conducted within a health system with multiple hospitals in different parts of the United States (Ohio and Florida) and included a broad population mix with differing levels of acuity. The retrospective nature of the assessment precludes establishing causation. However, we mitigated confounding by adjusting for a wide variety of factors, and there is a plausible physiological mechanism for each of the factors we studied. Also, the retrospective nature of our study predisposes our data to omissions and misrepresentations during the documentation process. This is especially true with the use of ICD codes.19 Inaccuracies in coding are likely to bias toward the null, so observed associations may be an underestimate of the true association.

Our inability to ascertain if a patient completed the prescribed bowel preparation limited our ability to detect what may be a significant risk factor. Lastly, while clinically relevant, the Aronchik scale used to identify adequate from IBP has never been validated though it is frequently utilized and cited in the bowel preparation literature.20

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective study evaluating bowel preparation quality in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy, we found that more than half of the patients have IBP and that IBP was associated with an extra day of hospitalization. Our study identifies those patients at highest risk and identifies modifiable risk factors for IBP. Specifically, we found that abstinence from opiates or solid diet before the colonoscopy, along with performing colonoscopies before noon were associated with improved outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the effects of these interventions on bowel preparation quality.

Disclosures

Carol A Burke, MD has received research funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gregory DL, Ciolino JD, Cooper A, Keswani RN. Predictors of inadequate inpatient colonoscopy preparation and its association with hospital length of stay and costs. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(11):3482-3490. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3761-2. PubMed
2. Jawa H, Mosli M, Alsamadani W, et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2017;28(6):460-464. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2017.17196. PubMed
3. Mcnabb-Baltar J, Dorreen A, Dhahab HA, et al. Age is the only predictor of poor bowel preparation in the hospitalized patient. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:1-5. doi: 10.1155/2016/2139264. PubMed
4. Rotondano G, Rispo A, Bottiglieri ME, et al. Tu1503 Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients is not worse than that of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy: results of a multicenter prospective regional study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(5):AB564. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.949. PubMed
5. Ness R. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(6):1797-1802. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9270(01)02437-6. PubMed
6. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the us multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(4):903-924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002. PubMed
7. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(3):346-352. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.108480. PubMed
8. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J, Burnand B, Vader J-P. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(3):378-384. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2. PubMed
9. Sarvepalli S, Garber A, Rizk M, et al. 923 adjusted comparison of commercial bowel preparations based on inadequacy of bowel preparation in outpatient settings. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):AB127. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1331. 
10. Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single center study of 10 571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9(8):745-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x. PubMed
11. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(7):2014-2020. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-1079-7. PubMed
12. Chorev N, Chadad B, Segal N, et al. Preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(3):835-839. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-9591-5. PubMed
13. Weiss AJ. Overview of Hospital Stays in the United States, 2012. HCUP Statistical Brief #180. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. PubMed
14. Kojecky V, Matous J, Keil R, et al. The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: a randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(3):271-276. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.10.010. PubMed
15. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3):700-706. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.047. PubMed
16. Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;56(2):539-544. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1457-1. PubMed
17. Ergen WF, Pasricha T, Hubbard FJ, et al. Providing hospitalized patients with an educational booklet increases the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):858-864. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.015. PubMed
18. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gluskin AB, et al. An automated inpatient split-dose bowel preparation system improves colonoscopy quality and reduces repeat procedures. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(8):709-714. doi: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000000849. PubMed
19. Birman-Deych E, Waterman AD, Yan Y, Nilasena DS, Radford MJ, Gage BF. The accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care. 2005;43(5):480-485. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160417.39497.a9. PubMed
20. Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, Barkun AN. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):197-204. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. PubMed

Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 14(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
278-283. Published online first April 8, 2019.
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) at the time of inpatient colonoscopy is common and associated with increased length of stay and cost of care.1 The factors that contribute to IBP can be categorized into those that are modifiable and those that are nonmodifiable. While many factors have been associated with IBP, studies have been limited by small sample size or have combined inpatient/outpatient populations, thus limiting generalizability.1-5 Moreover, most factors associated with IBP, such as socioeconomic status, male gender, increased age, and comorbidities, are nonmodifiable. No studies have explicitly focused on modifiable risk factors, such as medication use, colonoscopy timing, or assessed the potential impact of modifying these factors.

In a large, multihospital system, we examine the frequency of IBP among inpatients undergoing colonoscopy along with factors associated with IBP. We attempted to identify modifiable risk factors that were associated with IBP.

METHODS

After obtaining Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board approval, records of all adult (≥18 years) inpatients undergoing colonoscopy between January 2011 and June 2017 were obtained. Patients with colonoscopy reports lacking a description of the bowel preparation quality and colonoscopies performed in the intensive care unit were excluded. For each patient, we considered only the first inpatient colonoscopy if more than one occurred during the study period.

Potential Predictors of IBP

Demographic data such as patient age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and insurance/payor status were obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). International Classification of Disease 9th and 10th revision, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9/10-CM) codes were used to obtain patient comorbidities including diabetes, coronary artery disease, heart failure, cirrhosis, gastroparesis, hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, constipation, stroke, dementia, dysphagia, and nausea/vomiting. Use of opioid medications within three days before colonoscopy was extracted from the medication administration record. These variables were chosen as biologically plausible modifiers of bowel preparation or had previously been assessed in the literature.1-6 The name and volume, classified as 4 L (GoLytely®) and < 4 liters (MoviPrep®) of bowel preparation, time of day when colonoscopy was performed, solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy, type of sedation used (conscious sedation or general anesthesia), and total colonoscopy time (defined as the time from scope insertion to removal) was recorded. Hospitalization-related variables, including the number of hospitalizations in the year before the current hospitalization, the year in which the colonoscopy was performed, and the number of days from admission to colonoscopy, were also obtained from the EHR.

 

 

Outcome Measures

An internally validated natural language algorithm, using Structured Queried Language was used to search through colonoscopy reports to identify adequacy of bowel preparation. ProVation® software allows the gastroenterologist to use some terms to describe bowel preparation in a drop-down menu format. In addition to the Aronchik scale (which allows the gastroenterologist to rate bowel preparation on a five-point scale: “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “inadequate”) it also allows the provider to use terms such as “adequate” or “adequate to detect polyps >5 mm” as well as “unsatisfactory.”7 Mirroring prior literature, bowel preparation quality was classified into “adequate” and “inadequate”; “good” and “excellent” on the Aronchik scale were categorized as adequate as was the term “adequate” in any form; “fair,” “poor,” or “inadequate” on the Aronchik scale were classified as inadequate as was the term “unsatisfactory.” We evaluated the hospital length of stay (LOS) as a secondary outcome measure.

Statistical Analysis

After describing the frequency of IBP, the quality of bowel preparation (adequate vs inadequate) was compared based on the predictors described above. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies with percentages and continuous variables were reported as medians with 25th-75th percentile values. The significance of the difference between the proportion or median values of those who had inadequate versus adequate bowel preparation was assessed. Two-sided chi-square analysis was used to assess the significance of differences between categorical variables and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was used to assess the significance of differences between continuous variables.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with hospital predictors and outcomes, after adjusting for all the aforementioned factors and clustering the effect based on the endoscopist. To evaluate the potential impact of modifiable factors on IBP, we performed counterfactual analysis, in which the observed distribution was compared to a hypothetical population in which all the modifiable risk factors were optimal.

RESULTS

Overall, 8,819 patients were included in our study population. They had a median age of 64 [53-76] years; 50.5% were female and 51% had an IBP. Patient characteristics and rates of IBP are presented in Table 1.

In unadjusted analyses, with regards to modifiable factors, opiate use within three days of colonoscopy was associated with a higher rate of IBP (55.4% vs 47.3%, P <.001), as was a lower volume (<4L) bowel preparation (55.3% vs 50.4%, P = .003). IBP was less frequent when colonoscopy was performed before noon vs afternoon (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001), and when patients were documented to receive a clear liquid diet or nil per os vs a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001). Overall bowel preparation quality improved over time (Figure 1). Median LOS was five [3-11] days. Patients who had IBP on their initial colonoscopy had a LOS one day longer than patients without IBP (six days vs five days, P < .001).

Multivariate Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the multivariate analysis. The following modifiable factors were associated with IBP: opiate used within three days of the procedure (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.8, 1.45), having the colonoscopy performed after12:00 pm (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10, 1.41), and consuming a solid diet the day prior to the colonoscopy (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.59). However, the volume of bowel preparation was not associated with IBP. The selected nonmodifiable factors that were found to be associated with IBP included age (increment of five years; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.05), male gender (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.23, 1.44), Medicare insurance (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), gastroparesis (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16, 2.27), nausea/vomiting (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09, 1.34), and dysphagia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.34).

 

 

Potential Impact of Modifiable Variables

We conducted a counterfactual analysis based on a multivariate model to assess the impact of each modifiable risk factor on the IBP rate (Figure 1). In the included study population, 44.9% received an opiate, 39.3% had a colonoscopy after 12:00 pm, and 9.1% received solid food the day prior to the procedure. Holding all other factors constant, if all patients were not prescribed opiates within three days of the procedure a 2.9% reduction in IBP would be expected. Similarly, if all patients underwent colonoscopy before noon, a 2.1% reduction in IBP rate would be expected. A 0.7% reduction would be expected if all patients were maintained on a liquid diet or nil per os. Combined, instituting all these changes (no opiates or solid diet before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon) would produce a 5.6% reduction in IBP rate.

DISCUSSION

In this large, multihospital cohort, IBP was documented in half (51%) of 8,819 inpatient colonoscopies performed. Nonmodifiable patient characteristics independently associated with IBP were age, male gender, white race, Medicare and Medicaid insurance, nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis. Modifiable factors included not consuming opiates within three days of colonoscopy, avoidance of a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy and performing the colonoscopy before noon. The volume of bowel preparation consumed was not associated with IBP. In a counterfactual analysis, we found that if all three modifiable factors were optimized, the predicted rate of IBP would drop to 45%.

Many studies, including our analysis, have shown significant differences between the frequency of IBP in inpatient versus outpatient bowel preparations.8-11 Therefore, it is crucial to study IBP in these settings separately. Three single-institution studies, including a total of 898 patients, have identified risk factors for inpatient IBP. Individual studies ranged in size from 130 to 524 patients with rates of IBP ranging from 22%-57%.1-3 They found IBP to be associated with increasing age, lower income, ASA Grade >3, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), nausea or vomiting, BMI >25, and chronic constipation. Modifiable factors included opiates, afternoon procedures, and runway times >6 hours.

We also found IBP to be associated with increasing age and male gender. However, we found no association with diabetes, chronic constipation, CAD or BMI. As we were able to adjust for a wider variety of variables, it is possible that we were able to account for residual confounding better than previous studies. For example, we found that having nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis was associated with IBP. Gastroparesis with associated nausea and vomiting may be the mechanism by which diabetes increases the risk for IBP. Further studies are needed to assess if interventions or alternative bowel cleansing in these patients can result in improved IBP. Finally, in contrast to studies with smaller cohorts which found that lower volume bowel preps improved IBP in the right colon,4,12 we found no association between IBP based and volume of bowel preparation consumed. Our impact analysis suggests that avoidance of opiates for at least three days before colonoscopy, avoidance of solid diet on the day before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon would reduce the rate of IBP by 5.6%. While at first glance this does not appear to be a significant change, from a public health perspective with thousands of inpatient colonoscopies performed every year, it is crucial. We found that IBP was associated with an increased inpatient LOS of approximately one day. Assuming an average cost of one hospital day to be $2,000,13 this 5.6% improvement among our almost 9,000 patients, would translate into eliminating 494 unnecessary hospital days, or approximately $1 million in savings. More importantly, this savings comes without risk to patients and would result in an improvement in quality.

The factors mentioned above may not always be amenable to modification. For example, for patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding, postponing colonoscopy by one day for the sake of maintaining a patient on a clear diet may not be feasible. Similarly, performing colonoscopies in the morning is highly dependent on endoscopy suite availability and hospital logistics. Denying opiates to patients experiencing severe pain is not ethical. In many scenarios, however, these variables could be modified, and institutional efforts to support these practices could yield considerable savings. Future prospective studies are needed to verify the real impact of these changes.

Further discussion is needed to contextualize the finding that colonoscopies scheduled in the afternoon are associated with improved bowel preparation quality. Previous research—albeit in the outpatient setting—has demonstrated 11.8 hours as the maximum upper time limit for the time elapsed between the end of bowel preparation to colonoscopy.14 Another study found an inverse relationship between the quality of bowel preparation and the time after completion of the bowel preparation.15 This makes sense from a physiological perspective as delaying the time between completion of bowel preparation, and the procedure allows chyme from the small intestine to reaccumulate in the colon. Anecdotally, at our institution as well as at many others, the bowel preparations are ordered to start in the evening to allow the consumption of complete bowel preparation by midnight. As a result of this practice, only patients who have their colonoscopies scheduled before noon fall within the optimal period of 11.8 hours. In the outpatient setting, the use of split preparations has led to the obliteration of the difference in the quality of bowel preparation between morning and afternoon colonoscopies.16 Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the use of split preparations to improve the quality of afternoon inpatient colonoscopies.



Few other strategies have been shown to mitigate IBP in the inpatient setting. In a small randomized controlled trial, Ergen et al. found that providing an educational booklet improved inpatient bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.17 In a quasi-experimental design, Yadlapati et al. found that an automated split-dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased IBP, fewer repeated procedures, shorter LOS, and lower hospital cost.18 Our study adds to these tools by identifying three additional risk factors which could be optimized for inpatients. Because our findings are observational, they should be subjected to prospective trials. Our study also calls into question the impact of bowel preparation volume. We found no difference in the rate of IBP between low and large volume preparations. It is possible that other factors are more important than the specific preparation employed. Information regarding the use of split preparations or same day preparations was not recorded and therefore not assessed in our study.

Interestingly, we found that IBP declined substantially in 2014 and continued to decline after that. The year was the most influential risk factor for IBP (on par with gastroparesis). The reason for this is unclear, as rates of our modifiable risk factors did not differ substantially by year. Other possibilities include improved access (including weekend access) to endoscopy coinciding with the development of a new endoscopy facility and use of integrated irrigation pump system instead of the use of manual syringes for flushing.

Our study has many strengths. It is by far the most extensive study of bowel preparation quality in inpatients to date and the only one that has included patient, procedural and bowel preparation characteristics. The study also has several significant limitations. This is a single center study, which could limit generalizability. Nonetheless, it was conducted within a health system with multiple hospitals in different parts of the United States (Ohio and Florida) and included a broad population mix with differing levels of acuity. The retrospective nature of the assessment precludes establishing causation. However, we mitigated confounding by adjusting for a wide variety of factors, and there is a plausible physiological mechanism for each of the factors we studied. Also, the retrospective nature of our study predisposes our data to omissions and misrepresentations during the documentation process. This is especially true with the use of ICD codes.19 Inaccuracies in coding are likely to bias toward the null, so observed associations may be an underestimate of the true association.

Our inability to ascertain if a patient completed the prescribed bowel preparation limited our ability to detect what may be a significant risk factor. Lastly, while clinically relevant, the Aronchik scale used to identify adequate from IBP has never been validated though it is frequently utilized and cited in the bowel preparation literature.20

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective study evaluating bowel preparation quality in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy, we found that more than half of the patients have IBP and that IBP was associated with an extra day of hospitalization. Our study identifies those patients at highest risk and identifies modifiable risk factors for IBP. Specifically, we found that abstinence from opiates or solid diet before the colonoscopy, along with performing colonoscopies before noon were associated with improved outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the effects of these interventions on bowel preparation quality.

Disclosures

Carol A Burke, MD has received research funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) at the time of inpatient colonoscopy is common and associated with increased length of stay and cost of care.1 The factors that contribute to IBP can be categorized into those that are modifiable and those that are nonmodifiable. While many factors have been associated with IBP, studies have been limited by small sample size or have combined inpatient/outpatient populations, thus limiting generalizability.1-5 Moreover, most factors associated with IBP, such as socioeconomic status, male gender, increased age, and comorbidities, are nonmodifiable. No studies have explicitly focused on modifiable risk factors, such as medication use, colonoscopy timing, or assessed the potential impact of modifying these factors.

In a large, multihospital system, we examine the frequency of IBP among inpatients undergoing colonoscopy along with factors associated with IBP. We attempted to identify modifiable risk factors that were associated with IBP.

METHODS

After obtaining Cleveland Clinic Institutional Review Board approval, records of all adult (≥18 years) inpatients undergoing colonoscopy between January 2011 and June 2017 were obtained. Patients with colonoscopy reports lacking a description of the bowel preparation quality and colonoscopies performed in the intensive care unit were excluded. For each patient, we considered only the first inpatient colonoscopy if more than one occurred during the study period.

Potential Predictors of IBP

Demographic data such as patient age, gender, ethnicity, body mass index (BMI), and insurance/payor status were obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). International Classification of Disease 9th and 10th revision, Clinical Modifications (ICD-9/10-CM) codes were used to obtain patient comorbidities including diabetes, coronary artery disease, heart failure, cirrhosis, gastroparesis, hypothyroidism, inflammatory bowel disease, constipation, stroke, dementia, dysphagia, and nausea/vomiting. Use of opioid medications within three days before colonoscopy was extracted from the medication administration record. These variables were chosen as biologically plausible modifiers of bowel preparation or had previously been assessed in the literature.1-6 The name and volume, classified as 4 L (GoLytely®) and < 4 liters (MoviPrep®) of bowel preparation, time of day when colonoscopy was performed, solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy, type of sedation used (conscious sedation or general anesthesia), and total colonoscopy time (defined as the time from scope insertion to removal) was recorded. Hospitalization-related variables, including the number of hospitalizations in the year before the current hospitalization, the year in which the colonoscopy was performed, and the number of days from admission to colonoscopy, were also obtained from the EHR.

 

 

Outcome Measures

An internally validated natural language algorithm, using Structured Queried Language was used to search through colonoscopy reports to identify adequacy of bowel preparation. ProVation® software allows the gastroenterologist to use some terms to describe bowel preparation in a drop-down menu format. In addition to the Aronchik scale (which allows the gastroenterologist to rate bowel preparation on a five-point scale: “excellent,” “good,” “fair,” “poor,” and “inadequate”) it also allows the provider to use terms such as “adequate” or “adequate to detect polyps >5 mm” as well as “unsatisfactory.”7 Mirroring prior literature, bowel preparation quality was classified into “adequate” and “inadequate”; “good” and “excellent” on the Aronchik scale were categorized as adequate as was the term “adequate” in any form; “fair,” “poor,” or “inadequate” on the Aronchik scale were classified as inadequate as was the term “unsatisfactory.” We evaluated the hospital length of stay (LOS) as a secondary outcome measure.

Statistical Analysis

After describing the frequency of IBP, the quality of bowel preparation (adequate vs inadequate) was compared based on the predictors described above. Categorical variables were reported as frequencies with percentages and continuous variables were reported as medians with 25th-75th percentile values. The significance of the difference between the proportion or median values of those who had inadequate versus adequate bowel preparation was assessed. Two-sided chi-square analysis was used to assess the significance of differences between categorical variables and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum test was used to assess the significance of differences between continuous variables.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with hospital predictors and outcomes, after adjusting for all the aforementioned factors and clustering the effect based on the endoscopist. To evaluate the potential impact of modifiable factors on IBP, we performed counterfactual analysis, in which the observed distribution was compared to a hypothetical population in which all the modifiable risk factors were optimal.

RESULTS

Overall, 8,819 patients were included in our study population. They had a median age of 64 [53-76] years; 50.5% were female and 51% had an IBP. Patient characteristics and rates of IBP are presented in Table 1.

In unadjusted analyses, with regards to modifiable factors, opiate use within three days of colonoscopy was associated with a higher rate of IBP (55.4% vs 47.3%, P <.001), as was a lower volume (<4L) bowel preparation (55.3% vs 50.4%, P = .003). IBP was less frequent when colonoscopy was performed before noon vs afternoon (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001), and when patients were documented to receive a clear liquid diet or nil per os vs a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy (50.3% vs 57.4%, P < .001). Overall bowel preparation quality improved over time (Figure 1). Median LOS was five [3-11] days. Patients who had IBP on their initial colonoscopy had a LOS one day longer than patients without IBP (six days vs five days, P < .001).

Multivariate Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the multivariate analysis. The following modifiable factors were associated with IBP: opiate used within three days of the procedure (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.8, 1.45), having the colonoscopy performed after12:00 pm (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10, 1.41), and consuming a solid diet the day prior to the colonoscopy (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.18, 1.59). However, the volume of bowel preparation was not associated with IBP. The selected nonmodifiable factors that were found to be associated with IBP included age (increment of five years; OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02, 1.05), male gender (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.23, 1.44), Medicare insurance (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.28), gastroparesis (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.16, 2.27), nausea/vomiting (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09, 1.34), and dysphagia (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01, 1.34).

 

 

Potential Impact of Modifiable Variables

We conducted a counterfactual analysis based on a multivariate model to assess the impact of each modifiable risk factor on the IBP rate (Figure 1). In the included study population, 44.9% received an opiate, 39.3% had a colonoscopy after 12:00 pm, and 9.1% received solid food the day prior to the procedure. Holding all other factors constant, if all patients were not prescribed opiates within three days of the procedure a 2.9% reduction in IBP would be expected. Similarly, if all patients underwent colonoscopy before noon, a 2.1% reduction in IBP rate would be expected. A 0.7% reduction would be expected if all patients were maintained on a liquid diet or nil per os. Combined, instituting all these changes (no opiates or solid diet before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon) would produce a 5.6% reduction in IBP rate.

DISCUSSION

In this large, multihospital cohort, IBP was documented in half (51%) of 8,819 inpatient colonoscopies performed. Nonmodifiable patient characteristics independently associated with IBP were age, male gender, white race, Medicare and Medicaid insurance, nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis. Modifiable factors included not consuming opiates within three days of colonoscopy, avoidance of a solid diet the day prior to colonoscopy and performing the colonoscopy before noon. The volume of bowel preparation consumed was not associated with IBP. In a counterfactual analysis, we found that if all three modifiable factors were optimized, the predicted rate of IBP would drop to 45%.

Many studies, including our analysis, have shown significant differences between the frequency of IBP in inpatient versus outpatient bowel preparations.8-11 Therefore, it is crucial to study IBP in these settings separately. Three single-institution studies, including a total of 898 patients, have identified risk factors for inpatient IBP. Individual studies ranged in size from 130 to 524 patients with rates of IBP ranging from 22%-57%.1-3 They found IBP to be associated with increasing age, lower income, ASA Grade >3, diabetes, coronary artery disease (CAD), nausea or vomiting, BMI >25, and chronic constipation. Modifiable factors included opiates, afternoon procedures, and runway times >6 hours.

We also found IBP to be associated with increasing age and male gender. However, we found no association with diabetes, chronic constipation, CAD or BMI. As we were able to adjust for a wider variety of variables, it is possible that we were able to account for residual confounding better than previous studies. For example, we found that having nausea/vomiting, dysphagia, and gastroparesis was associated with IBP. Gastroparesis with associated nausea and vomiting may be the mechanism by which diabetes increases the risk for IBP. Further studies are needed to assess if interventions or alternative bowel cleansing in these patients can result in improved IBP. Finally, in contrast to studies with smaller cohorts which found that lower volume bowel preps improved IBP in the right colon,4,12 we found no association between IBP based and volume of bowel preparation consumed. Our impact analysis suggests that avoidance of opiates for at least three days before colonoscopy, avoidance of solid diet on the day before colonoscopy and performing all colonoscopies before noon would reduce the rate of IBP by 5.6%. While at first glance this does not appear to be a significant change, from a public health perspective with thousands of inpatient colonoscopies performed every year, it is crucial. We found that IBP was associated with an increased inpatient LOS of approximately one day. Assuming an average cost of one hospital day to be $2,000,13 this 5.6% improvement among our almost 9,000 patients, would translate into eliminating 494 unnecessary hospital days, or approximately $1 million in savings. More importantly, this savings comes without risk to patients and would result in an improvement in quality.

The factors mentioned above may not always be amenable to modification. For example, for patients with active gastrointestinal bleeding, postponing colonoscopy by one day for the sake of maintaining a patient on a clear diet may not be feasible. Similarly, performing colonoscopies in the morning is highly dependent on endoscopy suite availability and hospital logistics. Denying opiates to patients experiencing severe pain is not ethical. In many scenarios, however, these variables could be modified, and institutional efforts to support these practices could yield considerable savings. Future prospective studies are needed to verify the real impact of these changes.

Further discussion is needed to contextualize the finding that colonoscopies scheduled in the afternoon are associated with improved bowel preparation quality. Previous research—albeit in the outpatient setting—has demonstrated 11.8 hours as the maximum upper time limit for the time elapsed between the end of bowel preparation to colonoscopy.14 Another study found an inverse relationship between the quality of bowel preparation and the time after completion of the bowel preparation.15 This makes sense from a physiological perspective as delaying the time between completion of bowel preparation, and the procedure allows chyme from the small intestine to reaccumulate in the colon. Anecdotally, at our institution as well as at many others, the bowel preparations are ordered to start in the evening to allow the consumption of complete bowel preparation by midnight. As a result of this practice, only patients who have their colonoscopies scheduled before noon fall within the optimal period of 11.8 hours. In the outpatient setting, the use of split preparations has led to the obliteration of the difference in the quality of bowel preparation between morning and afternoon colonoscopies.16 Prospective trials are needed to evaluate the use of split preparations to improve the quality of afternoon inpatient colonoscopies.



Few other strategies have been shown to mitigate IBP in the inpatient setting. In a small randomized controlled trial, Ergen et al. found that providing an educational booklet improved inpatient bowel preparation as measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.17 In a quasi-experimental design, Yadlapati et al. found that an automated split-dose bowel preparation resulted in decreased IBP, fewer repeated procedures, shorter LOS, and lower hospital cost.18 Our study adds to these tools by identifying three additional risk factors which could be optimized for inpatients. Because our findings are observational, they should be subjected to prospective trials. Our study also calls into question the impact of bowel preparation volume. We found no difference in the rate of IBP between low and large volume preparations. It is possible that other factors are more important than the specific preparation employed. Information regarding the use of split preparations or same day preparations was not recorded and therefore not assessed in our study.

Interestingly, we found that IBP declined substantially in 2014 and continued to decline after that. The year was the most influential risk factor for IBP (on par with gastroparesis). The reason for this is unclear, as rates of our modifiable risk factors did not differ substantially by year. Other possibilities include improved access (including weekend access) to endoscopy coinciding with the development of a new endoscopy facility and use of integrated irrigation pump system instead of the use of manual syringes for flushing.

Our study has many strengths. It is by far the most extensive study of bowel preparation quality in inpatients to date and the only one that has included patient, procedural and bowel preparation characteristics. The study also has several significant limitations. This is a single center study, which could limit generalizability. Nonetheless, it was conducted within a health system with multiple hospitals in different parts of the United States (Ohio and Florida) and included a broad population mix with differing levels of acuity. The retrospective nature of the assessment precludes establishing causation. However, we mitigated confounding by adjusting for a wide variety of factors, and there is a plausible physiological mechanism for each of the factors we studied. Also, the retrospective nature of our study predisposes our data to omissions and misrepresentations during the documentation process. This is especially true with the use of ICD codes.19 Inaccuracies in coding are likely to bias toward the null, so observed associations may be an underestimate of the true association.

Our inability to ascertain if a patient completed the prescribed bowel preparation limited our ability to detect what may be a significant risk factor. Lastly, while clinically relevant, the Aronchik scale used to identify adequate from IBP has never been validated though it is frequently utilized and cited in the bowel preparation literature.20

 

 

CONCLUSIONS

In this large retrospective study evaluating bowel preparation quality in inpatients undergoing colonoscopy, we found that more than half of the patients have IBP and that IBP was associated with an extra day of hospitalization. Our study identifies those patients at highest risk and identifies modifiable risk factors for IBP. Specifically, we found that abstinence from opiates or solid diet before the colonoscopy, along with performing colonoscopies before noon were associated with improved outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the effects of these interventions on bowel preparation quality.

Disclosures

Carol A Burke, MD has received research funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

1. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gregory DL, Ciolino JD, Cooper A, Keswani RN. Predictors of inadequate inpatient colonoscopy preparation and its association with hospital length of stay and costs. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(11):3482-3490. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3761-2. PubMed
2. Jawa H, Mosli M, Alsamadani W, et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2017;28(6):460-464. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2017.17196. PubMed
3. Mcnabb-Baltar J, Dorreen A, Dhahab HA, et al. Age is the only predictor of poor bowel preparation in the hospitalized patient. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:1-5. doi: 10.1155/2016/2139264. PubMed
4. Rotondano G, Rispo A, Bottiglieri ME, et al. Tu1503 Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients is not worse than that of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy: results of a multicenter prospective regional study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(5):AB564. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.949. PubMed
5. Ness R. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(6):1797-1802. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9270(01)02437-6. PubMed
6. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the us multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(4):903-924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002. PubMed
7. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(3):346-352. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.108480. PubMed
8. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J, Burnand B, Vader J-P. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(3):378-384. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2. PubMed
9. Sarvepalli S, Garber A, Rizk M, et al. 923 adjusted comparison of commercial bowel preparations based on inadequacy of bowel preparation in outpatient settings. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):AB127. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1331. 
10. Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single center study of 10 571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9(8):745-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x. PubMed
11. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(7):2014-2020. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-1079-7. PubMed
12. Chorev N, Chadad B, Segal N, et al. Preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(3):835-839. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-9591-5. PubMed
13. Weiss AJ. Overview of Hospital Stays in the United States, 2012. HCUP Statistical Brief #180. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. PubMed
14. Kojecky V, Matous J, Keil R, et al. The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: a randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(3):271-276. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.10.010. PubMed
15. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3):700-706. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.047. PubMed
16. Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;56(2):539-544. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1457-1. PubMed
17. Ergen WF, Pasricha T, Hubbard FJ, et al. Providing hospitalized patients with an educational booklet increases the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):858-864. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.015. PubMed
18. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gluskin AB, et al. An automated inpatient split-dose bowel preparation system improves colonoscopy quality and reduces repeat procedures. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(8):709-714. doi: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000000849. PubMed
19. Birman-Deych E, Waterman AD, Yan Y, Nilasena DS, Radford MJ, Gage BF. The accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care. 2005;43(5):480-485. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160417.39497.a9. PubMed
20. Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, Barkun AN. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):197-204. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. PubMed

References

1. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gregory DL, Ciolino JD, Cooper A, Keswani RN. Predictors of inadequate inpatient colonoscopy preparation and its association with hospital length of stay and costs. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(11):3482-3490. doi: 10.1007/s10620-015-3761-2. PubMed
2. Jawa H, Mosli M, Alsamadani W, et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for inpatient colonoscopy. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2017;28(6):460-464. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2017.17196. PubMed
3. Mcnabb-Baltar J, Dorreen A, Dhahab HA, et al. Age is the only predictor of poor bowel preparation in the hospitalized patient. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2016:1-5. doi: 10.1155/2016/2139264. PubMed
4. Rotondano G, Rispo A, Bottiglieri ME, et al. Tu1503 Quality of bowel cleansing in hospitalized patients is not worse than that of outpatients undergoing colonoscopy: results of a multicenter prospective regional study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(5):AB564. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.949. PubMed
5. Ness R. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(6):1797-1802. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9270(01)02437-6. PubMed
6. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the us multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(4):903-924. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2014.07.002. PubMed
7. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52(3):346-352. doi: 10.1067/mge.2000.108480. PubMed
8. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers J-J, Burnand B, Vader J-P. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(3):378-384. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2. PubMed
9. Sarvepalli S, Garber A, Rizk M, et al. 923 adjusted comparison of commercial bowel preparations based on inadequacy of bowel preparation in outpatient settings. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(6):AB127. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.1331. 
10. Hendry PO, Jenkins JT, Diament RH. The impact of poor bowel preparation on colonoscopy: a prospective single center study of 10 571 colonoscopies. Colorectal Dis. 2007;9(8):745-748. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2007.01220.x. PubMed
11. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55(7):2014-2020. doi: 10.1007/s10620-009-1079-7. PubMed
12. Chorev N, Chadad B, Segal N, et al. Preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(3):835-839. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-9591-5. PubMed
13. Weiss AJ. Overview of Hospital Stays in the United States, 2012. HCUP Statistical Brief #180. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. PubMed
14. Kojecky V, Matous J, Keil R, et al. The optimal bowel preparation intervals before colonoscopy: a randomized study comparing polyethylene glycol and low-volume solutions. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(3):271-276. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2017.10.010. PubMed
15. Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3):700-706. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.09.047. PubMed
16. Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;56(2):539-544. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1457-1. PubMed
17. Ergen WF, Pasricha T, Hubbard FJ, et al. Providing hospitalized patients with an educational booklet increases the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(6):858-864. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.11.015. PubMed
18. Yadlapati R, Johnston ER, Gluskin AB, et al. An automated inpatient split-dose bowel preparation system improves colonoscopy quality and reduces repeat procedures. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(8):709-714. doi: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000000849. PubMed
19. Birman-Deych E, Waterman AD, Yan Y, Nilasena DS, Radford MJ, Gage BF. The accuracy of ICD-9-CM codes for identifying cardiovascular and stroke risk factors. Med Care. 2005;43(5):480-485. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000160417.39497.a9. PubMed
20. Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, Barkun AN. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;111(2):197-204. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. PubMed

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 14(5)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 14(5)
Page Number
278-283. Published online first April 8, 2019.
Page Number
278-283. Published online first April 8, 2019.
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

© 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Michael B Rothberg, MD, MPH; E-mail: rothbem@ccf.org; Telephone: 216-445-0719.
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media

Gallstones: Watch and wait, or intervene?

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 04/01/2019 - 10:08
Display Headline
Gallstones: Watch and wait, or intervene?

The prevalence of gallstones is approximately 10% to 15% of the adult US population.1,2 Most cases are asymptomatic, as gallstones are usually discovered incidentally during routine imaging for other abdominal conditions, and only about 20% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop clinically significant complications.2,3

Nevertheless, gallstones carry significant healthcare costs. In 2004, the median inpatient cost for any gallstone-related disease was $11,584, with an overall annual cost of $6.2 billion.4,5

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. For asymptomatic cholelithasis, the usual approach is expectant management (“watch and wait”), but prophylactic cholecystectomy may be an option in certain patients at high risk.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Gallstones can be classified into 2 main categories based on their predominant chemical composition: cholesterol or pigment.

Cholesterol gallstones

About 75% of gallstones are composed of cholesterol.3,4 In the past, this type of stone was thought to be caused by gallbladder inflammation, bile stasis, and absorption of bile salts from damaged mucosa. However, it is now known that cholesterol gallstones are the result of biliary supersaturation caused by cholesterol hypersecretion into the gallbladder, gallbladder hypomotility, accelerated cholesterol nucleation and crystallization, and mucin gel accumulation.

Pigment gallstones

Black pigment gallstones account for 10% to 15% of all gallstones.6 They are caused by chronic hemolysis in association with supersaturation of bile with calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, along with deposition of calcium carbonate, phosphate, and inorganic salts.7

Brown pigment stones, accounting for 5% to 10% of all gallstones,6 are caused by infection in the obstructed bile ducts, where bacteria that produce beta-glucuronidase, phospholipase, and slime contribute to formation of the stone.8,9

RISK FACTORS FOR GALLSTONES

Gallstone risk factors
Multiple risk factors are associated with the development of gallstones (Table 1).

Age. After age 40, the risk increases dramatically, with an incidence 4 times higher for those ages 40 to 69 than in younger people.10

Female sex. Women of reproductive age are 4 times more likely to develop gallstones than men, but this gap narrows after menopause.11 The higher risk is attributed to female sex hormones, pregnancy, and oral contraceptive use. Estrogen decreases secretion of bile salts and increases secretion of cholesterol into the gallbladder, which leads to cholesterol supersaturation. Progesterone acts synergistically by causing hypomobility of the gallbladder, which in turn leads to bile stasis.12,13

Ethnicity. The risk is higher in Mexican Americans and Native Americans than in other ethnic groups.14

Rapid weight loss, such as after bariatric surgery, occurs from decreased caloric intake and promotes bile stasis, while lipolysis increases cholesterol mobilization and secretion into the gallbladder. This creates an environment conducive to bile supersaturation with cholesterol, leading to gallstone formation.

Chronic hemolytic disorders carry an increased risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones due to increased excretion of bilirubin during hemolysis.

Obesity and diabetes mellitus are both attributed to insulin resistance. Obesity also increases bile stasis and cholesterol saturation.

 

 

CLINICAL PRESENTATION OF GALLSTONES (CHOLELITHIASIS)

Most patients with gallstones (cholelithiasis) experience no symptoms. Their gallstones are often discovered incidentally during imaging tests for unrelated or unexplained abdominal symptoms. Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones remain symptom-free, while about 20% develop gallstone-related symptoms.2,3

Abdominal pain is the most common symptom. The phrase biliary colic—suggesting pain that is fluctuating in nature—appears ubiquitously in the medical literature, but it does not correctly characterize the pain associated with gallstones.

Most patients with gallstone symptoms describe a constant and often severe pain in the right upper abdomen, epigastrium, or both, often persisting for 30 to 120 minutes. Symptoms are frequently reported in the epigastrium when only visceral pain fibers are stimulated due to gallbladder distention. This is usually called midline pain; however, pain occurs in the back and right shoulder in up to 60% of patients, with involvement of somatic fibers.15,16 Gallstone pain is not relieved by change of position or passage of stool or gas.

Onset of symptoms more than an hour after eating or in the late evening or at night also  very strongly suggests biliary pain. Patients with a history of biliary pain are more likely to experience it again, with a 69% chance of developing recurrent pain within 2 years.17

GALLSTONE-RELATED COMPLICATIONS

Gallstone complications
In any year, approximately 1% to 3% of patients with gallstones experience a gallstone-related complication.18 These complications (Table 2) can occur in patients with or without symptoms. Patients without previous symptoms from gallstones have a slightly lower 10-year cumulative risk of complications—3% to 4% vs approximately 6% in patients who have had gallstone-related symptoms.19

Acute gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis)

Gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis) is the most common complication, occurring in up to 10% of symptomatic cases. Many patients with acute cholecystitis present with right upper quadrant pain that may be accompanied by anorexia, nausea, or vomiting. Inspiratory arrest on deep palpation of the right upper quadrant (Murphy sign) has a specificity of 79% to 96% for acute cholecystitis.20 Markers of systemic inflammation such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein are highly suggestive of acute cholecystitis.20,21

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis)

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis) are detected in 3.4% to 12% of patients with gallstones.22,23 Most stones in the common bile duct migrate there from the gallbladder via the cystic duct. Less commonly, primary duct stones form in the duct due to biliary stasis. Removing the gallbladder does not completely eliminate the risk of bile duct stones, as stones can remain or recur after surgery.

Bile duct stones can obstruct the common bile duct, which disrupts normal bile flow and leads to jaundice. Other symptoms may include pruritus, right upper quadrant pain, nausea, and vomiting. Serum levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase are usually high.24

Acute bacterial infection (cholangitis)

Acute bacterial infection of the biliary system (cholangitis) is usually associated with obstruction of the common bile duct. Common symptoms of acute cholangitis include right upper quadrant pain, fever, and jaundice (Charcot triad), and these are present in about 50% to 75% of cases.21 In severe cases, patients can develop altered mental status and septicemic shock in addition to the Charcot triad, a condition called the Reynold pentad. White blood cell counts and serum levels of C-reactive protein, bilirubin, aminotransferases, and alkaline phosphatase are usually elevated.21

Pancreatitis

Approximately 4% to 8% of patients with gallstones develop inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis).25 The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis requires at least 2 of the following:26,27

  • Abdominal pain (typically epigastric, often radiating to the back)
  • Amylase or lipase levels at least 3 times above the normal limit
  • Imaging findings that suggest acute pancreatitis.

Gallstone-related pancreatitis should be considered if the ALT level is greater than 150 U/mL, which has a 97% specificity for gallstone-related pancreatitis.28

 

 

ABDOMINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSIS

Transabdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of 84% to 89% and a specificity of up to 99%, is the test of choice for detecting gallstones.29 The characteristic findings of acute cholecystitis on ultrasonography include enlargement of the gallbladder, thickening of the gallbladder wall, presence of pericholecystic fluid, and tenderness elicited by the ultrasound probe over the gallbladder (sonographic Murphy sign).

Scintigraphy as a second test

Acute cholecystitis is primarily a clinical diagnosis and typically does not require additional imaging beyond ultrasonography. When there is discordance between clinical and ultrasonographic findings, the most accurate second imaging test is scintigraphy of the biliary tract, usually performed with technetium-labeled hydroxy iminodiacetic acid. Given intravenously, the radionuclide is rapidly taken up by the liver and then secreted into the bile. In acute cholecystitis, the cystic duct is functionally occluded and the isotope does not enter the gallbladder, creating an imaging void compared with a normal appearance.

Scintigraphy is more sensitive than abdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of up to 97% vs 81% to 88%, respectively.29,30 The tests have about equal specificity.

Even though scintigraphy is more sensitive, abdominal ultrasonography is often the initial test for patients with suspected acute cholecystitis because it is more widely available, takes less time, does not involve radiation exposure, and can assess for the presence or absence of gallstones and dilation of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts.

Looking for stones in the common bile duct

When acute cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis is suspected, abdominal ultrasonography is a prudent initial test to look for gallstones or biliary dilation suggesting obstruction by stones in the common bile duct. Abdominal ultrasonography has only a 22% to 55% sensitivity for visualizing stones in the common bile duct, but it has a 77% to 87% sensitivity for detecting common bile duct dilation, a surrogate marker of stones.31

The normal bile duct diameter ranges from 3 to 6 mm, although mild dilation is often seen in older patients or after cholecystectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.32,33 Bile duct dilation of up to 10 mm can be considered normal in patients after cholecystectomy.34 A normal-appearing bile duct on ultrasonography has a negative predictive value of 95% for excluding common bile duct stones.31

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have similar sensitivity (89%–94%, 85%–92%, and 89%–93%, respectively) and specificity (94%–95%, 93%–97%, and 100%, respectively) for detecting common bile duct stones.35–37 EUS is superior to MRCP in detecting stones smaller than 6 mm.38

ERCP should be reserved for managing rather than diagnosing common bile duct stones because of the risk of pancreatitis and perforation. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy who are suspected of having choledocholithiasis may undergo intraoperative cholangiography or laparoscopic common bile duct ultrasonography.

WATCH AND WAIT, OR INTERVENE?

Asymptomatic gallstones

Asymptomatic gallstones: Outcomes with watchful waiting
The management of patients with asymptomatic gallstones typically is based on the risk of developing symptoms or complications. Large cohort studies have found that patients without symptoms have about a 7% to 26% lifetime risk of developing them (Table 3).39–46

Standard treatment for these patients is expectant management. Cholecystectomy is not recommended for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.47 Nevertheless, some patients may benefit from prophylactic cholecystectomy. We and others48 suggest considering cholecystectomy in the following patients.

Patients with chronic hemolytic anemia (including children with sickle cell anemia and spherocytosis). These patients have a higher risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones, and cholecystectomy has improved outcomes.49 It should be noted that most of these data come from pediatric populations and have been extrapolated to adults.

Native Americans, who have a higher risk of gallbladder cancer if they have gallstones.2,50

Conversely, calcification of the gallbladder wall (“porcelain gallbladder”) is no longer considered an absolute indication for cholecystectomy. This condition was thought to be associated with a high rate of gallbladder carcinoma, but analyses of larger, more recent data sets found much smaller risks.51,52 Further, cholecystectomy in these patients was found to be associated with high rates of postoperative complications. Thus, prophylactic cholecystectomy is no longer recommended in asymptomatic cases of porcelain gallbladder.

In addition, concomitant cholecystectomy in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is no longer considered the therapeutic standard. Historically, cholecystectomy was performed in these patients because of the increased risk of gallstones associated with rapid weight loss after surgery. However, research now weighs against concomitant cholecystectomy with bariatric surgery and most other abdominal surgeries for asymptomatic gallstones.53

 

 

Laparoscopic surgery for symptomatic gallstones

Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Based on information in reference 48.
Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Patients with symptomatic gallstones are at high risk of biliary complications. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended for patients who can undergo surgery (Figure 1).48 Oral dissolution therapy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are available for patients who cannot undergo surgery but have good gallbladder function, small radiopaque stones, and mild symptoms. Clinical management and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy are recommended for large pigmented or radiopaque stones. Otherwise, clinical follow-up is recommended.

For patients experiencing acute cholecystitis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours is recommended.48 There were safety concerns regarding higher rates of morbidity and conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in patients who underwent surgery before the acute cholecystitis episode had settled. However, a large meta-analysis found no significant difference between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in bile duct injury or conversion rates.54 Further, early cholecystectomy—defined as within 1 week of symptom onset—has been found to reduce gallstone-related complications, shorten hospital stays, and lower costs.55–57 If the patient cannot undergo surgery, percutaneous cholecystotomy or novel endoscopic gallbladder drainage interventions can be used.

Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
Reprinted from ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endoscp 2010; 71:1–9 with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
For patients with bile duct stones. Guidelines from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) suggest that patients with an intermediate or high probability of developing choledocholithiasis should undergo preoperative or intraoperative evaluation of the common bile duct (Figure 2).31

Several variables predict the presence of bile duct stones in patients who have symptoms (Table 4). Based on these predictors, the ASGE classifies the probabilities as low (< 10%), intermediate (10% to 50%), and high (> 50%)31:

  • Table 4. Predictors of bile duct stones
    Low-risk patients require no further evaluation of the common bile duct
  • High-risk patients should undergo preoperative ERCP and stone extraction if needed
  • Intermediate-risk patients should undergo preoperative imaging with EUS or MRCP or intraoperative bile duct evaluation, depending on the availability, costs, and local expertise.

Patients with associated cholangitis should be given intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Biliary decompression should be done as early as possible to decrease the risk of morbidity and mortality. For acute cholangitis, ERCP is the treatment of choice.25

Patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis should receive conservative management with intravenous isotonic solutions and pain control, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.48

The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute gallstone pancreatitis has been debated. Studies conducted during the era of open cholecystectomy reported similar or worse outcomes if cholecystectomy was done sooner rather than later.

However, in 1999, Uhl et al58 reported that 48 of 77 patients admitted with acute gallstone pancreatitis were able to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same admission. Success rates were 85% (30 of 35 patients) in those with mild disease and 62% (8 of 13 patients) in those with severe disease. They concluded laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be safely performed within 7 days in patients with mild disease, whereas in severe disease at least 3 weeks should elapse because of the risk of infection.

In a randomized trial published in 2010, Aboulian et al59 reported that hospital length of stay (the primary end point) was shorter in 25 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy early (within 48 hours of admission) than in 25 patients who underwent surgery after abdominal pain had resolved and laboratory enzymes showed a normalizing trend, 3.5 vs 5.8 days (P = .0016). Rates of perioperative complications and need for conversion to open surgery were similar between the 2 groups.

If there is associated cholangitis, patients should also be given broad-spectrum antibiotics and should undergo ERCP within 24 hours of admission.25–27

SUMMARY

Gallstones are common in US adults. Abdominal ultrasonography is the diagnostic imaging test of choice to detect gallbladder stones and assess for findings suggestive of acute cholecystitis and dilation of the common bile duct. Fortunately, most gallstones are asymptomatic and can usually be managed expectantly. In patients who have symptoms or have gallstone complications, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard of care.

References
  1. Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF. Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005; 15(3):329–338. doi:10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v15.i3.90
  2. Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012; 6(2):172–187. doi:10.5009/gnl.2012.6.2.172
  3. Lee JY, Keane MG, Pereira S. Diagnosis and treatment of gallstone disease. Practitioner 2015; 259(1783):15–19.
  4. Russo MW, Wei JT, Thiny MT, et al. Digestive and liver diseases statistics, 2004. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(5):1448–1453. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.025
  5. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 2009; 136(2):376–386. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.015
  6. Cariati A. Gallstone classification in Western countries. Indian J Surg 2015; 77(suppl 2):376–380. doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0847-y
  7. Carey MC. Pathogenesis of gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):410–419. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(05)80932-8
  8. Lammert F, Gurusamy K, Ko CW, et al. Gallstones. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2:16024. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.24
  9. Stewart L, Oesterle AL, Erdan I, Griffiss JM, Way LW. Pathogenesis of pigment gallstones in Western societies: the central role of bacteria. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6(6):891–904.
  10. Barbara L, Sama C, Morselli Labate AM, et al. A population study on the prevalence of gallstone disease: the Sirmione Study. Hepatology 1987; 7(5):913–917. doi:10.1002/hep.1840070520
  11. Sood S, Winn T, Ibrahim S, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic gallstones: differential behaviour in male and female subjects. Med J Malaysia 2015; 70(6):341–345.
  12. Maringhini A, Ciambra M, Baccelliere P, et al. Biliary sludge and gallstones in pregnancy: incidence, risk factors, and natural history. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119(2):116–120. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00004
  13. Etminan M, Delaney JA, Bressler B, Brophy JM. Oral contraceptives and the risk of gallbladder disease: a comparative safety study. CMAJ 2011; 183(8):899–904. doi:10.1503/cmaj.110161
  14. Everhart JE, Khare M, Hill M, Maurer KR. Prevalence and ethnic differences in gallbladder disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 1999; 117(3):632–639.
  15. Festi D, Sottili S, Colecchia A, et al. Clinical manifestations of gallstone disease: evidence from the multicenter Italian study on cholelithiasis (MICOL). Hepatology 1999; 30(4):839–846. doi:10.1002/hep.510300401
  16. Berhane T, Vetrhus M, Hausken T, Olafsson S, Sondenaa K. Pain attacks in non-complicated and complicated gallstone disease have a characteristic pattern and are accompanied by dyspepsia in most patients: the results of a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41(1):93–101. doi:10.1080/00365520510023990
  17. Thistle JL, Cleary PA, Lachin JM, Tyor MP, Hersh T. The natural history of cholelithiasis: the National Cooperative Gallstone Study. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101(2):171–175. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-101-2-171
  18. Friedman GD. Natural history of asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):399–404. doi:0.1016/S0002-9610(05)80930-4
  19. Friedman GD, Raviola CA, Fireman B. Prognosis of gallstones with mild or no symptoms: 25 years of follow-up in a health maintenance organization. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(2):127–136. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90086-3
  20. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):78–82. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1159-4
  21. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):27–34. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1153-x
  22. Koo KP, Traverso LW. Do preoperative indicators predict the presence of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 1996; 171(5):495–499. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(97)89611-0
  23. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, Fitzgerald E, O’Sullivan GC. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 2004; 239(1):28–33. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103069.00170.9c
  24. Costi R, Gnocchi A, Di Mario F, Sarli L. Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(37):13382–13401. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13382
  25. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones. J Hepatol 2016; 65(1):146–181. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005
  26. Greenberg JA, Hsu J, Bawazeer M, et al. Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Can J Surg 2016; 59 (2):128–140. doi:10.1503/cjs.015015
  27. Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108(9):1400–1416. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218
  28. Moolla Z, Anderson F, Thomson SR. Use of amylase and alanine transaminase to predict acute gallstone pancreatitis in a population with high HIV prevalence. World J Surg 2013; 37(1):156–161. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1801-z
  29. Shea JA, Berlin JA, Escarce JJ, et al. Revised estimates of diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity in suspected biliary tract disease. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154(22):2573–2581. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420220069008
  30. Kiewiet JJ, Leeuwenburgh MM, Bipat S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis. Radiology 2012; 264(3):708–720. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111561
  31. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71(1):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.041
  32. Bachar GN, Cohen M, Belenky A, Atar E, Gideon S. Effect of aging on the adult extrahepatic bile duct: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22(9):879–885. doi:10.7863/jum.2003.22.9.879
  33. El-Hayek K, Timratana P, Meranda J, Shimizu H, Eldar S, Chand B. Post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass biliary dilation: natural process or significant entity? J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16(12):2185–2189. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2058-4
  34. Park SM, Kim WS, Bae IH, et al. Common bile duct dilatation after cholecystectomy: a one-year prospective study. J Korean Surg Soc 2012; 83(2):97–101. doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.2.97
  35. Tse F, Liu L, Barkun AN, Armstrong D, Moayyedi P. EUS: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67(2):235–244. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.047
  36. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64(2):248–254. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.038
  37. Tseng LJ, Jao YT, Mo LR, Lin RC. Over-the-wire US catheter probe as an adjunct to ERCP in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54(6):720–723. doi:10.1067/mge.2001.119255
  38. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54(2):271–275. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.007
  39. Attili AF, De Santis A, Capri R, Repice AM, Maselli S. The natural history of gallstones: the GREPCO experience. The GREPCO Group. Hepatology 1995; 21(3):656–660. doi:10.1016/0270-9139(95)90514-6
  40. Sakorafas GH, Milingos D, Peros G. Asymptomatic cholelithiasis: is cholecystectomy really needed? A critical reappraisal 15 years after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 2007; 52(5):1313–1325. doi:10.1007/s10620-006-9107-3
  41. Gracie WA, Ransohoff DF. The natural history of silent gallstones: the innocent gallstone is not a myth. N Engl J Med 1982; 307(13):798–800. doi:10.1056/NEJM198209233071305
  42. McSherry CK, Ferstenberg H, Calhoun WF, Lahman E, Virshup M. The natural history of diagnosed gallstone disease in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Ann Surg 1985; 202(1):59–63. doi:10.1097/00000658-198507000-00009
  43. Wada K, Wada K, Imamura T. Natural course of asymptomatic gallstone disease. Nihon Rinsho 1993; 51(7):1737–1743. Japanese.
  44. Halldestam I, Enell EL, Kullman E, Borch K. Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones. Br J Surg 2004; 91(6):734–738. doi:10.1002/bjs.4547
  45. Festi D, Reggiani ML, Attili AF, et al. Natural history of gallstone disease: expectant management or active treatment? Results from a population-based cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25(4):719–724. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06146.x
  46. Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T. A prediction rule for risk stratification of incidentally discovered gallstones: results from a large cohort study. Gastroenterology 2016; 150(1):156–167e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.002
  47. Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W, Fanelli R; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(10):2368–2386. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1268-7
  48. Abraham S, Rivero HG, Erlikh IV, Griffith LF, Kondamudi VK. Surgical and nonsurgical management of gallstones. Am Fam Physician 2014; 89(10):795–802.
  49. Currò G,, Iapichino G, Lorenzini C, Palmeri R, Cucinotta E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children with chronic hemolytic anemia. Is the outcome related to the timing of the procedure? Surg Endosc 2006; 20(2):252–255. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0318-z
  50. Hundal R, Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 6:99–109. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S37357
  51. Chen GL, Akmal Y, DiFronzo AL, Vuong B, O’Connor V. Porcelain gallbladder: no longer an indication for prophylactic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 2015; 81(10):936–940.
  52. Schnelldorfer T. Porcelain gallbladder: a benign process or concern for malignancy? J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(6):1161–1168. doi:10.1007/s11605-013-2170-0
  53. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Ukegjini K, et al. Concomitant cholecystectomy during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese patients is not justified: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2013; 23(3)3979–408. doi:10.1007/s11695-012-0852-4
  54. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, Wilson E, Davidson BR. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2010; 97(2):141–150. doi:10.1002/bjs.6870
  55. Papi C, Catarci M, D’Ambrosio L, et al. Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(1):147–155. doi:10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04002.x
  56. Gurusamy KS, Davidson C, Gluud C, Davidson BR. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 6:CD005440. doi:10.1002/14651858
  57. Menahem B, Mulliri A, Fohlen A, Guittet L, Alves A, Lubrano J. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases the total hospital stay compared to an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute cholecystitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2015; 17(10):857–862. doi:10.1111/hpb.12449
  58. Uhl W, Müller CA, Krähenbühl L, Schmid SW, Schölzel S, Büchler MW. Acute gallstone pancreatitis: timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease. Surg Endosc 1999; 13(11):1070–1076. doi:10.1007/s004649901175
  59. Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg 2010(4): 251:615–619. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c38f1f
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mounir Ibrahim, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Shashank Sarvepalli, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD
HPB Surgery, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute; Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Maged Rizk, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Amit Bhatt, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

R. Matthew Walsh, MD
Rich Family Distinguished Chair of Digestive Diseases, Chairman, Department of General Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Chairman, Academic Department of Surgery, Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Umar Hayat, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Ari Garber, MD, EdD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Instructor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

John Vargo, MD
Chairman, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Carol A. Burke, MD
Vice Chair, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Carol A. Burke, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, A30, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; burkec1@ccf.org

Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 85(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
323-331
Legacy Keywords
gallstones, cholelithiasis, gallbladder, cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, bile duct, pancreas, pancreatitis, Mounir Ibrahim, Shashank Sarvepalli, Gareth Morris-Stiff, Maged Rizk, Amit Bhatt, Matthew Walsh, Umar Hayat, Ari Garber, John Vargo, Carol Burke
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mounir Ibrahim, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Shashank Sarvepalli, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD
HPB Surgery, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute; Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Maged Rizk, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Amit Bhatt, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

R. Matthew Walsh, MD
Rich Family Distinguished Chair of Digestive Diseases, Chairman, Department of General Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Chairman, Academic Department of Surgery, Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Umar Hayat, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Ari Garber, MD, EdD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Instructor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

John Vargo, MD
Chairman, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Carol A. Burke, MD
Vice Chair, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Carol A. Burke, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, A30, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; burkec1@ccf.org

Author and Disclosure Information

Mounir Ibrahim, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Shashank Sarvepalli, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD
HPB Surgery, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute; Department of Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Maged Rizk, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Amit Bhatt, MD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Assistant Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

R. Matthew Walsh, MD
Rich Family Distinguished Chair of Digestive Diseases, Chairman, Department of General Surgery, Digestive Disease Institute, Chairman, Academic Department of Surgery, Education Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Umar Hayat, MD
Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Ari Garber, MD, EdD
Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Instructor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

John Vargo, MD
Chairman, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic; Associate Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH

Carol A. Burke, MD
Vice Chair, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic

Address: Carol A. Burke, MD, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease Institute, A30, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; burkec1@ccf.org

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

The prevalence of gallstones is approximately 10% to 15% of the adult US population.1,2 Most cases are asymptomatic, as gallstones are usually discovered incidentally during routine imaging for other abdominal conditions, and only about 20% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop clinically significant complications.2,3

Nevertheless, gallstones carry significant healthcare costs. In 2004, the median inpatient cost for any gallstone-related disease was $11,584, with an overall annual cost of $6.2 billion.4,5

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. For asymptomatic cholelithasis, the usual approach is expectant management (“watch and wait”), but prophylactic cholecystectomy may be an option in certain patients at high risk.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Gallstones can be classified into 2 main categories based on their predominant chemical composition: cholesterol or pigment.

Cholesterol gallstones

About 75% of gallstones are composed of cholesterol.3,4 In the past, this type of stone was thought to be caused by gallbladder inflammation, bile stasis, and absorption of bile salts from damaged mucosa. However, it is now known that cholesterol gallstones are the result of biliary supersaturation caused by cholesterol hypersecretion into the gallbladder, gallbladder hypomotility, accelerated cholesterol nucleation and crystallization, and mucin gel accumulation.

Pigment gallstones

Black pigment gallstones account for 10% to 15% of all gallstones.6 They are caused by chronic hemolysis in association with supersaturation of bile with calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, along with deposition of calcium carbonate, phosphate, and inorganic salts.7

Brown pigment stones, accounting for 5% to 10% of all gallstones,6 are caused by infection in the obstructed bile ducts, where bacteria that produce beta-glucuronidase, phospholipase, and slime contribute to formation of the stone.8,9

RISK FACTORS FOR GALLSTONES

Gallstone risk factors
Multiple risk factors are associated with the development of gallstones (Table 1).

Age. After age 40, the risk increases dramatically, with an incidence 4 times higher for those ages 40 to 69 than in younger people.10

Female sex. Women of reproductive age are 4 times more likely to develop gallstones than men, but this gap narrows after menopause.11 The higher risk is attributed to female sex hormones, pregnancy, and oral contraceptive use. Estrogen decreases secretion of bile salts and increases secretion of cholesterol into the gallbladder, which leads to cholesterol supersaturation. Progesterone acts synergistically by causing hypomobility of the gallbladder, which in turn leads to bile stasis.12,13

Ethnicity. The risk is higher in Mexican Americans and Native Americans than in other ethnic groups.14

Rapid weight loss, such as after bariatric surgery, occurs from decreased caloric intake and promotes bile stasis, while lipolysis increases cholesterol mobilization and secretion into the gallbladder. This creates an environment conducive to bile supersaturation with cholesterol, leading to gallstone formation.

Chronic hemolytic disorders carry an increased risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones due to increased excretion of bilirubin during hemolysis.

Obesity and diabetes mellitus are both attributed to insulin resistance. Obesity also increases bile stasis and cholesterol saturation.

 

 

CLINICAL PRESENTATION OF GALLSTONES (CHOLELITHIASIS)

Most patients with gallstones (cholelithiasis) experience no symptoms. Their gallstones are often discovered incidentally during imaging tests for unrelated or unexplained abdominal symptoms. Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones remain symptom-free, while about 20% develop gallstone-related symptoms.2,3

Abdominal pain is the most common symptom. The phrase biliary colic—suggesting pain that is fluctuating in nature—appears ubiquitously in the medical literature, but it does not correctly characterize the pain associated with gallstones.

Most patients with gallstone symptoms describe a constant and often severe pain in the right upper abdomen, epigastrium, or both, often persisting for 30 to 120 minutes. Symptoms are frequently reported in the epigastrium when only visceral pain fibers are stimulated due to gallbladder distention. This is usually called midline pain; however, pain occurs in the back and right shoulder in up to 60% of patients, with involvement of somatic fibers.15,16 Gallstone pain is not relieved by change of position or passage of stool or gas.

Onset of symptoms more than an hour after eating or in the late evening or at night also  very strongly suggests biliary pain. Patients with a history of biliary pain are more likely to experience it again, with a 69% chance of developing recurrent pain within 2 years.17

GALLSTONE-RELATED COMPLICATIONS

Gallstone complications
In any year, approximately 1% to 3% of patients with gallstones experience a gallstone-related complication.18 These complications (Table 2) can occur in patients with or without symptoms. Patients without previous symptoms from gallstones have a slightly lower 10-year cumulative risk of complications—3% to 4% vs approximately 6% in patients who have had gallstone-related symptoms.19

Acute gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis)

Gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis) is the most common complication, occurring in up to 10% of symptomatic cases. Many patients with acute cholecystitis present with right upper quadrant pain that may be accompanied by anorexia, nausea, or vomiting. Inspiratory arrest on deep palpation of the right upper quadrant (Murphy sign) has a specificity of 79% to 96% for acute cholecystitis.20 Markers of systemic inflammation such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein are highly suggestive of acute cholecystitis.20,21

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis)

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis) are detected in 3.4% to 12% of patients with gallstones.22,23 Most stones in the common bile duct migrate there from the gallbladder via the cystic duct. Less commonly, primary duct stones form in the duct due to biliary stasis. Removing the gallbladder does not completely eliminate the risk of bile duct stones, as stones can remain or recur after surgery.

Bile duct stones can obstruct the common bile duct, which disrupts normal bile flow and leads to jaundice. Other symptoms may include pruritus, right upper quadrant pain, nausea, and vomiting. Serum levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase are usually high.24

Acute bacterial infection (cholangitis)

Acute bacterial infection of the biliary system (cholangitis) is usually associated with obstruction of the common bile duct. Common symptoms of acute cholangitis include right upper quadrant pain, fever, and jaundice (Charcot triad), and these are present in about 50% to 75% of cases.21 In severe cases, patients can develop altered mental status and septicemic shock in addition to the Charcot triad, a condition called the Reynold pentad. White blood cell counts and serum levels of C-reactive protein, bilirubin, aminotransferases, and alkaline phosphatase are usually elevated.21

Pancreatitis

Approximately 4% to 8% of patients with gallstones develop inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis).25 The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis requires at least 2 of the following:26,27

  • Abdominal pain (typically epigastric, often radiating to the back)
  • Amylase or lipase levels at least 3 times above the normal limit
  • Imaging findings that suggest acute pancreatitis.

Gallstone-related pancreatitis should be considered if the ALT level is greater than 150 U/mL, which has a 97% specificity for gallstone-related pancreatitis.28

 

 

ABDOMINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSIS

Transabdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of 84% to 89% and a specificity of up to 99%, is the test of choice for detecting gallstones.29 The characteristic findings of acute cholecystitis on ultrasonography include enlargement of the gallbladder, thickening of the gallbladder wall, presence of pericholecystic fluid, and tenderness elicited by the ultrasound probe over the gallbladder (sonographic Murphy sign).

Scintigraphy as a second test

Acute cholecystitis is primarily a clinical diagnosis and typically does not require additional imaging beyond ultrasonography. When there is discordance between clinical and ultrasonographic findings, the most accurate second imaging test is scintigraphy of the biliary tract, usually performed with technetium-labeled hydroxy iminodiacetic acid. Given intravenously, the radionuclide is rapidly taken up by the liver and then secreted into the bile. In acute cholecystitis, the cystic duct is functionally occluded and the isotope does not enter the gallbladder, creating an imaging void compared with a normal appearance.

Scintigraphy is more sensitive than abdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of up to 97% vs 81% to 88%, respectively.29,30 The tests have about equal specificity.

Even though scintigraphy is more sensitive, abdominal ultrasonography is often the initial test for patients with suspected acute cholecystitis because it is more widely available, takes less time, does not involve radiation exposure, and can assess for the presence or absence of gallstones and dilation of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts.

Looking for stones in the common bile duct

When acute cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis is suspected, abdominal ultrasonography is a prudent initial test to look for gallstones or biliary dilation suggesting obstruction by stones in the common bile duct. Abdominal ultrasonography has only a 22% to 55% sensitivity for visualizing stones in the common bile duct, but it has a 77% to 87% sensitivity for detecting common bile duct dilation, a surrogate marker of stones.31

The normal bile duct diameter ranges from 3 to 6 mm, although mild dilation is often seen in older patients or after cholecystectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.32,33 Bile duct dilation of up to 10 mm can be considered normal in patients after cholecystectomy.34 A normal-appearing bile duct on ultrasonography has a negative predictive value of 95% for excluding common bile duct stones.31

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have similar sensitivity (89%–94%, 85%–92%, and 89%–93%, respectively) and specificity (94%–95%, 93%–97%, and 100%, respectively) for detecting common bile duct stones.35–37 EUS is superior to MRCP in detecting stones smaller than 6 mm.38

ERCP should be reserved for managing rather than diagnosing common bile duct stones because of the risk of pancreatitis and perforation. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy who are suspected of having choledocholithiasis may undergo intraoperative cholangiography or laparoscopic common bile duct ultrasonography.

WATCH AND WAIT, OR INTERVENE?

Asymptomatic gallstones

Asymptomatic gallstones: Outcomes with watchful waiting
The management of patients with asymptomatic gallstones typically is based on the risk of developing symptoms or complications. Large cohort studies have found that patients without symptoms have about a 7% to 26% lifetime risk of developing them (Table 3).39–46

Standard treatment for these patients is expectant management. Cholecystectomy is not recommended for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.47 Nevertheless, some patients may benefit from prophylactic cholecystectomy. We and others48 suggest considering cholecystectomy in the following patients.

Patients with chronic hemolytic anemia (including children with sickle cell anemia and spherocytosis). These patients have a higher risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones, and cholecystectomy has improved outcomes.49 It should be noted that most of these data come from pediatric populations and have been extrapolated to adults.

Native Americans, who have a higher risk of gallbladder cancer if they have gallstones.2,50

Conversely, calcification of the gallbladder wall (“porcelain gallbladder”) is no longer considered an absolute indication for cholecystectomy. This condition was thought to be associated with a high rate of gallbladder carcinoma, but analyses of larger, more recent data sets found much smaller risks.51,52 Further, cholecystectomy in these patients was found to be associated with high rates of postoperative complications. Thus, prophylactic cholecystectomy is no longer recommended in asymptomatic cases of porcelain gallbladder.

In addition, concomitant cholecystectomy in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is no longer considered the therapeutic standard. Historically, cholecystectomy was performed in these patients because of the increased risk of gallstones associated with rapid weight loss after surgery. However, research now weighs against concomitant cholecystectomy with bariatric surgery and most other abdominal surgeries for asymptomatic gallstones.53

 

 

Laparoscopic surgery for symptomatic gallstones

Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Based on information in reference 48.
Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Patients with symptomatic gallstones are at high risk of biliary complications. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended for patients who can undergo surgery (Figure 1).48 Oral dissolution therapy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are available for patients who cannot undergo surgery but have good gallbladder function, small radiopaque stones, and mild symptoms. Clinical management and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy are recommended for large pigmented or radiopaque stones. Otherwise, clinical follow-up is recommended.

For patients experiencing acute cholecystitis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours is recommended.48 There were safety concerns regarding higher rates of morbidity and conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in patients who underwent surgery before the acute cholecystitis episode had settled. However, a large meta-analysis found no significant difference between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in bile duct injury or conversion rates.54 Further, early cholecystectomy—defined as within 1 week of symptom onset—has been found to reduce gallstone-related complications, shorten hospital stays, and lower costs.55–57 If the patient cannot undergo surgery, percutaneous cholecystotomy or novel endoscopic gallbladder drainage interventions can be used.

Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
Reprinted from ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endoscp 2010; 71:1–9 with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
For patients with bile duct stones. Guidelines from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) suggest that patients with an intermediate or high probability of developing choledocholithiasis should undergo preoperative or intraoperative evaluation of the common bile duct (Figure 2).31

Several variables predict the presence of bile duct stones in patients who have symptoms (Table 4). Based on these predictors, the ASGE classifies the probabilities as low (< 10%), intermediate (10% to 50%), and high (> 50%)31:

  • Table 4. Predictors of bile duct stones
    Low-risk patients require no further evaluation of the common bile duct
  • High-risk patients should undergo preoperative ERCP and stone extraction if needed
  • Intermediate-risk patients should undergo preoperative imaging with EUS or MRCP or intraoperative bile duct evaluation, depending on the availability, costs, and local expertise.

Patients with associated cholangitis should be given intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Biliary decompression should be done as early as possible to decrease the risk of morbidity and mortality. For acute cholangitis, ERCP is the treatment of choice.25

Patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis should receive conservative management with intravenous isotonic solutions and pain control, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.48

The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute gallstone pancreatitis has been debated. Studies conducted during the era of open cholecystectomy reported similar or worse outcomes if cholecystectomy was done sooner rather than later.

However, in 1999, Uhl et al58 reported that 48 of 77 patients admitted with acute gallstone pancreatitis were able to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same admission. Success rates were 85% (30 of 35 patients) in those with mild disease and 62% (8 of 13 patients) in those with severe disease. They concluded laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be safely performed within 7 days in patients with mild disease, whereas in severe disease at least 3 weeks should elapse because of the risk of infection.

In a randomized trial published in 2010, Aboulian et al59 reported that hospital length of stay (the primary end point) was shorter in 25 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy early (within 48 hours of admission) than in 25 patients who underwent surgery after abdominal pain had resolved and laboratory enzymes showed a normalizing trend, 3.5 vs 5.8 days (P = .0016). Rates of perioperative complications and need for conversion to open surgery were similar between the 2 groups.

If there is associated cholangitis, patients should also be given broad-spectrum antibiotics and should undergo ERCP within 24 hours of admission.25–27

SUMMARY

Gallstones are common in US adults. Abdominal ultrasonography is the diagnostic imaging test of choice to detect gallbladder stones and assess for findings suggestive of acute cholecystitis and dilation of the common bile duct. Fortunately, most gallstones are asymptomatic and can usually be managed expectantly. In patients who have symptoms or have gallstone complications, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard of care.

The prevalence of gallstones is approximately 10% to 15% of the adult US population.1,2 Most cases are asymptomatic, as gallstones are usually discovered incidentally during routine imaging for other abdominal conditions, and only about 20% of patients with asymptomatic gallstones develop clinically significant complications.2,3

Nevertheless, gallstones carry significant healthcare costs. In 2004, the median inpatient cost for any gallstone-related disease was $11,584, with an overall annual cost of $6.2 billion.4,5

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard treatment for symptomatic cholelithiasis. For asymptomatic cholelithasis, the usual approach is expectant management (“watch and wait”), but prophylactic cholecystectomy may be an option in certain patients at high risk.

CHEMICAL COMPOSITION

Gallstones can be classified into 2 main categories based on their predominant chemical composition: cholesterol or pigment.

Cholesterol gallstones

About 75% of gallstones are composed of cholesterol.3,4 In the past, this type of stone was thought to be caused by gallbladder inflammation, bile stasis, and absorption of bile salts from damaged mucosa. However, it is now known that cholesterol gallstones are the result of biliary supersaturation caused by cholesterol hypersecretion into the gallbladder, gallbladder hypomotility, accelerated cholesterol nucleation and crystallization, and mucin gel accumulation.

Pigment gallstones

Black pigment gallstones account for 10% to 15% of all gallstones.6 They are caused by chronic hemolysis in association with supersaturation of bile with calcium hydrogen bilirubinate, along with deposition of calcium carbonate, phosphate, and inorganic salts.7

Brown pigment stones, accounting for 5% to 10% of all gallstones,6 are caused by infection in the obstructed bile ducts, where bacteria that produce beta-glucuronidase, phospholipase, and slime contribute to formation of the stone.8,9

RISK FACTORS FOR GALLSTONES

Gallstone risk factors
Multiple risk factors are associated with the development of gallstones (Table 1).

Age. After age 40, the risk increases dramatically, with an incidence 4 times higher for those ages 40 to 69 than in younger people.10

Female sex. Women of reproductive age are 4 times more likely to develop gallstones than men, but this gap narrows after menopause.11 The higher risk is attributed to female sex hormones, pregnancy, and oral contraceptive use. Estrogen decreases secretion of bile salts and increases secretion of cholesterol into the gallbladder, which leads to cholesterol supersaturation. Progesterone acts synergistically by causing hypomobility of the gallbladder, which in turn leads to bile stasis.12,13

Ethnicity. The risk is higher in Mexican Americans and Native Americans than in other ethnic groups.14

Rapid weight loss, such as after bariatric surgery, occurs from decreased caloric intake and promotes bile stasis, while lipolysis increases cholesterol mobilization and secretion into the gallbladder. This creates an environment conducive to bile supersaturation with cholesterol, leading to gallstone formation.

Chronic hemolytic disorders carry an increased risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones due to increased excretion of bilirubin during hemolysis.

Obesity and diabetes mellitus are both attributed to insulin resistance. Obesity also increases bile stasis and cholesterol saturation.

 

 

CLINICAL PRESENTATION OF GALLSTONES (CHOLELITHIASIS)

Most patients with gallstones (cholelithiasis) experience no symptoms. Their gallstones are often discovered incidentally during imaging tests for unrelated or unexplained abdominal symptoms. Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones remain symptom-free, while about 20% develop gallstone-related symptoms.2,3

Abdominal pain is the most common symptom. The phrase biliary colic—suggesting pain that is fluctuating in nature—appears ubiquitously in the medical literature, but it does not correctly characterize the pain associated with gallstones.

Most patients with gallstone symptoms describe a constant and often severe pain in the right upper abdomen, epigastrium, or both, often persisting for 30 to 120 minutes. Symptoms are frequently reported in the epigastrium when only visceral pain fibers are stimulated due to gallbladder distention. This is usually called midline pain; however, pain occurs in the back and right shoulder in up to 60% of patients, with involvement of somatic fibers.15,16 Gallstone pain is not relieved by change of position or passage of stool or gas.

Onset of symptoms more than an hour after eating or in the late evening or at night also  very strongly suggests biliary pain. Patients with a history of biliary pain are more likely to experience it again, with a 69% chance of developing recurrent pain within 2 years.17

GALLSTONE-RELATED COMPLICATIONS

Gallstone complications
In any year, approximately 1% to 3% of patients with gallstones experience a gallstone-related complication.18 These complications (Table 2) can occur in patients with or without symptoms. Patients without previous symptoms from gallstones have a slightly lower 10-year cumulative risk of complications—3% to 4% vs approximately 6% in patients who have had gallstone-related symptoms.19

Acute gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis)

Gallbladder inflammation (cholecystitis) is the most common complication, occurring in up to 10% of symptomatic cases. Many patients with acute cholecystitis present with right upper quadrant pain that may be accompanied by anorexia, nausea, or vomiting. Inspiratory arrest on deep palpation of the right upper quadrant (Murphy sign) has a specificity of 79% to 96% for acute cholecystitis.20 Markers of systemic inflammation such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein are highly suggestive of acute cholecystitis.20,21

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis)

Bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis) are detected in 3.4% to 12% of patients with gallstones.22,23 Most stones in the common bile duct migrate there from the gallbladder via the cystic duct. Less commonly, primary duct stones form in the duct due to biliary stasis. Removing the gallbladder does not completely eliminate the risk of bile duct stones, as stones can remain or recur after surgery.

Bile duct stones can obstruct the common bile duct, which disrupts normal bile flow and leads to jaundice. Other symptoms may include pruritus, right upper quadrant pain, nausea, and vomiting. Serum levels of bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and alkaline phosphatase are usually high.24

Acute bacterial infection (cholangitis)

Acute bacterial infection of the biliary system (cholangitis) is usually associated with obstruction of the common bile duct. Common symptoms of acute cholangitis include right upper quadrant pain, fever, and jaundice (Charcot triad), and these are present in about 50% to 75% of cases.21 In severe cases, patients can develop altered mental status and septicemic shock in addition to the Charcot triad, a condition called the Reynold pentad. White blood cell counts and serum levels of C-reactive protein, bilirubin, aminotransferases, and alkaline phosphatase are usually elevated.21

Pancreatitis

Approximately 4% to 8% of patients with gallstones develop inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis).25 The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis requires at least 2 of the following:26,27

  • Abdominal pain (typically epigastric, often radiating to the back)
  • Amylase or lipase levels at least 3 times above the normal limit
  • Imaging findings that suggest acute pancreatitis.

Gallstone-related pancreatitis should be considered if the ALT level is greater than 150 U/mL, which has a 97% specificity for gallstone-related pancreatitis.28

 

 

ABDOMINAL ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSIS

Transabdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of 84% to 89% and a specificity of up to 99%, is the test of choice for detecting gallstones.29 The characteristic findings of acute cholecystitis on ultrasonography include enlargement of the gallbladder, thickening of the gallbladder wall, presence of pericholecystic fluid, and tenderness elicited by the ultrasound probe over the gallbladder (sonographic Murphy sign).

Scintigraphy as a second test

Acute cholecystitis is primarily a clinical diagnosis and typically does not require additional imaging beyond ultrasonography. When there is discordance between clinical and ultrasonographic findings, the most accurate second imaging test is scintigraphy of the biliary tract, usually performed with technetium-labeled hydroxy iminodiacetic acid. Given intravenously, the radionuclide is rapidly taken up by the liver and then secreted into the bile. In acute cholecystitis, the cystic duct is functionally occluded and the isotope does not enter the gallbladder, creating an imaging void compared with a normal appearance.

Scintigraphy is more sensitive than abdominal ultrasonography, with a sensitivity of up to 97% vs 81% to 88%, respectively.29,30 The tests have about equal specificity.

Even though scintigraphy is more sensitive, abdominal ultrasonography is often the initial test for patients with suspected acute cholecystitis because it is more widely available, takes less time, does not involve radiation exposure, and can assess for the presence or absence of gallstones and dilation of the intra- and extrahepatic bile ducts.

Looking for stones in the common bile duct

When acute cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis is suspected, abdominal ultrasonography is a prudent initial test to look for gallstones or biliary dilation suggesting obstruction by stones in the common bile duct. Abdominal ultrasonography has only a 22% to 55% sensitivity for visualizing stones in the common bile duct, but it has a 77% to 87% sensitivity for detecting common bile duct dilation, a surrogate marker of stones.31

The normal bile duct diameter ranges from 3 to 6 mm, although mild dilation is often seen in older patients or after cholecystectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery.32,33 Bile duct dilation of up to 10 mm can be considered normal in patients after cholecystectomy.34 A normal-appearing bile duct on ultrasonography has a negative predictive value of 95% for excluding common bile duct stones.31

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have similar sensitivity (89%–94%, 85%–92%, and 89%–93%, respectively) and specificity (94%–95%, 93%–97%, and 100%, respectively) for detecting common bile duct stones.35–37 EUS is superior to MRCP in detecting stones smaller than 6 mm.38

ERCP should be reserved for managing rather than diagnosing common bile duct stones because of the risk of pancreatitis and perforation. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy who are suspected of having choledocholithiasis may undergo intraoperative cholangiography or laparoscopic common bile duct ultrasonography.

WATCH AND WAIT, OR INTERVENE?

Asymptomatic gallstones

Asymptomatic gallstones: Outcomes with watchful waiting
The management of patients with asymptomatic gallstones typically is based on the risk of developing symptoms or complications. Large cohort studies have found that patients without symptoms have about a 7% to 26% lifetime risk of developing them (Table 3).39–46

Standard treatment for these patients is expectant management. Cholecystectomy is not recommended for patients with asymptomatic gallstones.47 Nevertheless, some patients may benefit from prophylactic cholecystectomy. We and others48 suggest considering cholecystectomy in the following patients.

Patients with chronic hemolytic anemia (including children with sickle cell anemia and spherocytosis). These patients have a higher risk of developing calcium bilirubinate stones, and cholecystectomy has improved outcomes.49 It should be noted that most of these data come from pediatric populations and have been extrapolated to adults.

Native Americans, who have a higher risk of gallbladder cancer if they have gallstones.2,50

Conversely, calcification of the gallbladder wall (“porcelain gallbladder”) is no longer considered an absolute indication for cholecystectomy. This condition was thought to be associated with a high rate of gallbladder carcinoma, but analyses of larger, more recent data sets found much smaller risks.51,52 Further, cholecystectomy in these patients was found to be associated with high rates of postoperative complications. Thus, prophylactic cholecystectomy is no longer recommended in asymptomatic cases of porcelain gallbladder.

In addition, concomitant cholecystectomy in patients undergoing bariatric surgery is no longer considered the therapeutic standard. Historically, cholecystectomy was performed in these patients because of the increased risk of gallstones associated with rapid weight loss after surgery. However, research now weighs against concomitant cholecystectomy with bariatric surgery and most other abdominal surgeries for asymptomatic gallstones.53

 

 

Laparoscopic surgery for symptomatic gallstones

Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Based on information in reference 48.
Figure 1. Management of patients with gallstones.
Patients with symptomatic gallstones are at high risk of biliary complications. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended for patients who can undergo surgery (Figure 1).48 Oral dissolution therapy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy are available for patients who cannot undergo surgery but have good gallbladder function, small radiopaque stones, and mild symptoms. Clinical management and emergency laparoscopic cholecystectomy are recommended for large pigmented or radiopaque stones. Otherwise, clinical follow-up is recommended.

For patients experiencing acute cholecystitis, laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours is recommended.48 There were safety concerns regarding higher rates of morbidity and conversion from laparoscopic to open cholecystectomy in patients who underwent surgery before the acute cholecystitis episode had settled. However, a large meta-analysis found no significant difference between early and delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy in bile duct injury or conversion rates.54 Further, early cholecystectomy—defined as within 1 week of symptom onset—has been found to reduce gallstone-related complications, shorten hospital stays, and lower costs.55–57 If the patient cannot undergo surgery, percutaneous cholecystotomy or novel endoscopic gallbladder drainage interventions can be used.

Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
Reprinted from ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endoscp 2010; 71:1–9 with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 2. Management of patients with symptomatic bile duct stones (choledocholithiasis).
For patients with bile duct stones. Guidelines from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) suggest that patients with an intermediate or high probability of developing choledocholithiasis should undergo preoperative or intraoperative evaluation of the common bile duct (Figure 2).31

Several variables predict the presence of bile duct stones in patients who have symptoms (Table 4). Based on these predictors, the ASGE classifies the probabilities as low (< 10%), intermediate (10% to 50%), and high (> 50%)31:

  • Table 4. Predictors of bile duct stones
    Low-risk patients require no further evaluation of the common bile duct
  • High-risk patients should undergo preoperative ERCP and stone extraction if needed
  • Intermediate-risk patients should undergo preoperative imaging with EUS or MRCP or intraoperative bile duct evaluation, depending on the availability, costs, and local expertise.

Patients with associated cholangitis should be given intravenous fluids and broad-spectrum antibiotics. Biliary decompression should be done as early as possible to decrease the risk of morbidity and mortality. For acute cholangitis, ERCP is the treatment of choice.25

Patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis should receive conservative management with intravenous isotonic solutions and pain control, followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy.48

The timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute gallstone pancreatitis has been debated. Studies conducted during the era of open cholecystectomy reported similar or worse outcomes if cholecystectomy was done sooner rather than later.

However, in 1999, Uhl et al58 reported that 48 of 77 patients admitted with acute gallstone pancreatitis were able to undergo laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the same admission. Success rates were 85% (30 of 35 patients) in those with mild disease and 62% (8 of 13 patients) in those with severe disease. They concluded laparoscopic cholecystectomy could be safely performed within 7 days in patients with mild disease, whereas in severe disease at least 3 weeks should elapse because of the risk of infection.

In a randomized trial published in 2010, Aboulian et al59 reported that hospital length of stay (the primary end point) was shorter in 25 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy early (within 48 hours of admission) than in 25 patients who underwent surgery after abdominal pain had resolved and laboratory enzymes showed a normalizing trend, 3.5 vs 5.8 days (P = .0016). Rates of perioperative complications and need for conversion to open surgery were similar between the 2 groups.

If there is associated cholangitis, patients should also be given broad-spectrum antibiotics and should undergo ERCP within 24 hours of admission.25–27

SUMMARY

Gallstones are common in US adults. Abdominal ultrasonography is the diagnostic imaging test of choice to detect gallbladder stones and assess for findings suggestive of acute cholecystitis and dilation of the common bile duct. Fortunately, most gallstones are asymptomatic and can usually be managed expectantly. In patients who have symptoms or have gallstone complications, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard of care.

References
  1. Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF. Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005; 15(3):329–338. doi:10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v15.i3.90
  2. Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012; 6(2):172–187. doi:10.5009/gnl.2012.6.2.172
  3. Lee JY, Keane MG, Pereira S. Diagnosis and treatment of gallstone disease. Practitioner 2015; 259(1783):15–19.
  4. Russo MW, Wei JT, Thiny MT, et al. Digestive and liver diseases statistics, 2004. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(5):1448–1453. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.025
  5. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 2009; 136(2):376–386. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.015
  6. Cariati A. Gallstone classification in Western countries. Indian J Surg 2015; 77(suppl 2):376–380. doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0847-y
  7. Carey MC. Pathogenesis of gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):410–419. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(05)80932-8
  8. Lammert F, Gurusamy K, Ko CW, et al. Gallstones. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2:16024. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.24
  9. Stewart L, Oesterle AL, Erdan I, Griffiss JM, Way LW. Pathogenesis of pigment gallstones in Western societies: the central role of bacteria. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6(6):891–904.
  10. Barbara L, Sama C, Morselli Labate AM, et al. A population study on the prevalence of gallstone disease: the Sirmione Study. Hepatology 1987; 7(5):913–917. doi:10.1002/hep.1840070520
  11. Sood S, Winn T, Ibrahim S, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic gallstones: differential behaviour in male and female subjects. Med J Malaysia 2015; 70(6):341–345.
  12. Maringhini A, Ciambra M, Baccelliere P, et al. Biliary sludge and gallstones in pregnancy: incidence, risk factors, and natural history. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119(2):116–120. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00004
  13. Etminan M, Delaney JA, Bressler B, Brophy JM. Oral contraceptives and the risk of gallbladder disease: a comparative safety study. CMAJ 2011; 183(8):899–904. doi:10.1503/cmaj.110161
  14. Everhart JE, Khare M, Hill M, Maurer KR. Prevalence and ethnic differences in gallbladder disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 1999; 117(3):632–639.
  15. Festi D, Sottili S, Colecchia A, et al. Clinical manifestations of gallstone disease: evidence from the multicenter Italian study on cholelithiasis (MICOL). Hepatology 1999; 30(4):839–846. doi:10.1002/hep.510300401
  16. Berhane T, Vetrhus M, Hausken T, Olafsson S, Sondenaa K. Pain attacks in non-complicated and complicated gallstone disease have a characteristic pattern and are accompanied by dyspepsia in most patients: the results of a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41(1):93–101. doi:10.1080/00365520510023990
  17. Thistle JL, Cleary PA, Lachin JM, Tyor MP, Hersh T. The natural history of cholelithiasis: the National Cooperative Gallstone Study. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101(2):171–175. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-101-2-171
  18. Friedman GD. Natural history of asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):399–404. doi:0.1016/S0002-9610(05)80930-4
  19. Friedman GD, Raviola CA, Fireman B. Prognosis of gallstones with mild or no symptoms: 25 years of follow-up in a health maintenance organization. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(2):127–136. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90086-3
  20. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):78–82. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1159-4
  21. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):27–34. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1153-x
  22. Koo KP, Traverso LW. Do preoperative indicators predict the presence of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 1996; 171(5):495–499. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(97)89611-0
  23. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, Fitzgerald E, O’Sullivan GC. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 2004; 239(1):28–33. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103069.00170.9c
  24. Costi R, Gnocchi A, Di Mario F, Sarli L. Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(37):13382–13401. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13382
  25. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones. J Hepatol 2016; 65(1):146–181. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005
  26. Greenberg JA, Hsu J, Bawazeer M, et al. Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Can J Surg 2016; 59 (2):128–140. doi:10.1503/cjs.015015
  27. Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108(9):1400–1416. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218
  28. Moolla Z, Anderson F, Thomson SR. Use of amylase and alanine transaminase to predict acute gallstone pancreatitis in a population with high HIV prevalence. World J Surg 2013; 37(1):156–161. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1801-z
  29. Shea JA, Berlin JA, Escarce JJ, et al. Revised estimates of diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity in suspected biliary tract disease. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154(22):2573–2581. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420220069008
  30. Kiewiet JJ, Leeuwenburgh MM, Bipat S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis. Radiology 2012; 264(3):708–720. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111561
  31. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71(1):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.041
  32. Bachar GN, Cohen M, Belenky A, Atar E, Gideon S. Effect of aging on the adult extrahepatic bile duct: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22(9):879–885. doi:10.7863/jum.2003.22.9.879
  33. El-Hayek K, Timratana P, Meranda J, Shimizu H, Eldar S, Chand B. Post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass biliary dilation: natural process or significant entity? J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16(12):2185–2189. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2058-4
  34. Park SM, Kim WS, Bae IH, et al. Common bile duct dilatation after cholecystectomy: a one-year prospective study. J Korean Surg Soc 2012; 83(2):97–101. doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.2.97
  35. Tse F, Liu L, Barkun AN, Armstrong D, Moayyedi P. EUS: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67(2):235–244. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.047
  36. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64(2):248–254. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.038
  37. Tseng LJ, Jao YT, Mo LR, Lin RC. Over-the-wire US catheter probe as an adjunct to ERCP in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54(6):720–723. doi:10.1067/mge.2001.119255
  38. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54(2):271–275. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.007
  39. Attili AF, De Santis A, Capri R, Repice AM, Maselli S. The natural history of gallstones: the GREPCO experience. The GREPCO Group. Hepatology 1995; 21(3):656–660. doi:10.1016/0270-9139(95)90514-6
  40. Sakorafas GH, Milingos D, Peros G. Asymptomatic cholelithiasis: is cholecystectomy really needed? A critical reappraisal 15 years after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 2007; 52(5):1313–1325. doi:10.1007/s10620-006-9107-3
  41. Gracie WA, Ransohoff DF. The natural history of silent gallstones: the innocent gallstone is not a myth. N Engl J Med 1982; 307(13):798–800. doi:10.1056/NEJM198209233071305
  42. McSherry CK, Ferstenberg H, Calhoun WF, Lahman E, Virshup M. The natural history of diagnosed gallstone disease in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Ann Surg 1985; 202(1):59–63. doi:10.1097/00000658-198507000-00009
  43. Wada K, Wada K, Imamura T. Natural course of asymptomatic gallstone disease. Nihon Rinsho 1993; 51(7):1737–1743. Japanese.
  44. Halldestam I, Enell EL, Kullman E, Borch K. Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones. Br J Surg 2004; 91(6):734–738. doi:10.1002/bjs.4547
  45. Festi D, Reggiani ML, Attili AF, et al. Natural history of gallstone disease: expectant management or active treatment? Results from a population-based cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25(4):719–724. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06146.x
  46. Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T. A prediction rule for risk stratification of incidentally discovered gallstones: results from a large cohort study. Gastroenterology 2016; 150(1):156–167e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.002
  47. Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W, Fanelli R; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(10):2368–2386. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1268-7
  48. Abraham S, Rivero HG, Erlikh IV, Griffith LF, Kondamudi VK. Surgical and nonsurgical management of gallstones. Am Fam Physician 2014; 89(10):795–802.
  49. Currò G,, Iapichino G, Lorenzini C, Palmeri R, Cucinotta E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children with chronic hemolytic anemia. Is the outcome related to the timing of the procedure? Surg Endosc 2006; 20(2):252–255. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0318-z
  50. Hundal R, Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 6:99–109. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S37357
  51. Chen GL, Akmal Y, DiFronzo AL, Vuong B, O’Connor V. Porcelain gallbladder: no longer an indication for prophylactic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 2015; 81(10):936–940.
  52. Schnelldorfer T. Porcelain gallbladder: a benign process or concern for malignancy? J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(6):1161–1168. doi:10.1007/s11605-013-2170-0
  53. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Ukegjini K, et al. Concomitant cholecystectomy during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese patients is not justified: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2013; 23(3)3979–408. doi:10.1007/s11695-012-0852-4
  54. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, Wilson E, Davidson BR. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2010; 97(2):141–150. doi:10.1002/bjs.6870
  55. Papi C, Catarci M, D’Ambrosio L, et al. Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(1):147–155. doi:10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04002.x
  56. Gurusamy KS, Davidson C, Gluud C, Davidson BR. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 6:CD005440. doi:10.1002/14651858
  57. Menahem B, Mulliri A, Fohlen A, Guittet L, Alves A, Lubrano J. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases the total hospital stay compared to an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute cholecystitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2015; 17(10):857–862. doi:10.1111/hpb.12449
  58. Uhl W, Müller CA, Krähenbühl L, Schmid SW, Schölzel S, Büchler MW. Acute gallstone pancreatitis: timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease. Surg Endosc 1999; 13(11):1070–1076. doi:10.1007/s004649901175
  59. Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg 2010(4): 251:615–619. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c38f1f
References
  1. Schirmer BD, Winters KL, Edlich RF. Cholelithiasis and cholecystitis. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 2005; 15(3):329–338. doi:10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v15.i3.90
  2. Stinton LM, Shaffer EA. Epidemiology of gallbladder disease: cholelithiasis and cancer. Gut Liver 2012; 6(2):172–187. doi:10.5009/gnl.2012.6.2.172
  3. Lee JY, Keane MG, Pereira S. Diagnosis and treatment of gallstone disease. Practitioner 2015; 259(1783):15–19.
  4. Russo MW, Wei JT, Thiny MT, et al. Digestive and liver diseases statistics, 2004. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(5):1448–1453. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2004.01.025
  5. Everhart JE, Ruhl CE. Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part I: overall and upper gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 2009; 136(2):376–386. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.015
  6. Cariati A. Gallstone classification in Western countries. Indian J Surg 2015; 77(suppl 2):376–380. doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0847-y
  7. Carey MC. Pathogenesis of gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):410–419. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(05)80932-8
  8. Lammert F, Gurusamy K, Ko CW, et al. Gallstones. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2:16024. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.24
  9. Stewart L, Oesterle AL, Erdan I, Griffiss JM, Way LW. Pathogenesis of pigment gallstones in Western societies: the central role of bacteria. J Gastrointest Surg 2002; 6(6):891–904.
  10. Barbara L, Sama C, Morselli Labate AM, et al. A population study on the prevalence of gallstone disease: the Sirmione Study. Hepatology 1987; 7(5):913–917. doi:10.1002/hep.1840070520
  11. Sood S, Winn T, Ibrahim S, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic gallstones: differential behaviour in male and female subjects. Med J Malaysia 2015; 70(6):341–345.
  12. Maringhini A, Ciambra M, Baccelliere P, et al. Biliary sludge and gallstones in pregnancy: incidence, risk factors, and natural history. Ann Intern Med 1993; 119(2):116–120. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-119-2-199307150-00004
  13. Etminan M, Delaney JA, Bressler B, Brophy JM. Oral contraceptives and the risk of gallbladder disease: a comparative safety study. CMAJ 2011; 183(8):899–904. doi:10.1503/cmaj.110161
  14. Everhart JE, Khare M, Hill M, Maurer KR. Prevalence and ethnic differences in gallbladder disease in the United States. Gastroenterology 1999; 117(3):632–639.
  15. Festi D, Sottili S, Colecchia A, et al. Clinical manifestations of gallstone disease: evidence from the multicenter Italian study on cholelithiasis (MICOL). Hepatology 1999; 30(4):839–846. doi:10.1002/hep.510300401
  16. Berhane T, Vetrhus M, Hausken T, Olafsson S, Sondenaa K. Pain attacks in non-complicated and complicated gallstone disease have a characteristic pattern and are accompanied by dyspepsia in most patients: the results of a prospective study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41(1):93–101. doi:10.1080/00365520510023990
  17. Thistle JL, Cleary PA, Lachin JM, Tyor MP, Hersh T. The natural history of cholelithiasis: the National Cooperative Gallstone Study. Ann Intern Med 1984; 101(2):171–175. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-101-2-171
  18. Friedman GD. Natural history of asymptomatic and symptomatic gallstones. Am J Surg 1993; 165(4):399–404. doi:0.1016/S0002-9610(05)80930-4
  19. Friedman GD, Raviola CA, Fireman B. Prognosis of gallstones with mild or no symptoms: 25 years of follow-up in a health maintenance organization. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(2):127–136. doi:10.1016/0895-4356(89)90086-3
  20. Hirota M, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):78–82. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1159-4
  21. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14(1):27–34. doi:10.1007/s00534-006-1153-x
  22. Koo KP, Traverso LW. Do preoperative indicators predict the presence of common bile duct stones during laparoscopic cholecystectomy? Am J Surg 1996; 171(5):495–499. doi:10.1016/S0002-9610(97)89611-0
  23. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, Fitzgerald E, O’Sullivan GC. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 2004; 239(1):28–33. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000103069.00170.9c
  24. Costi R, Gnocchi A, Di Mario F, Sarli L. Diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis in the golden age of imaging, endoscopy and laparoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20(37):13382–13401. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i37.13382
  25. European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL). EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones. J Hepatol 2016; 65(1):146–181. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005
  26. Greenberg JA, Hsu J, Bawazeer M, et al. Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Can J Surg 2016; 59 (2):128–140. doi:10.1503/cjs.015015
  27. Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS; American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108(9):1400–1416. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218
  28. Moolla Z, Anderson F, Thomson SR. Use of amylase and alanine transaminase to predict acute gallstone pancreatitis in a population with high HIV prevalence. World J Surg 2013; 37(1):156–161. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1801-z
  29. Shea JA, Berlin JA, Escarce JJ, et al. Revised estimates of diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity in suspected biliary tract disease. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154(22):2573–2581. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420220069008
  30. Kiewiet JJ, Leeuwenburgh MM, Bipat S, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of imaging in acute cholecystitis. Radiology 2012; 264(3):708–720. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111561
  31. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71(1):1–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.041
  32. Bachar GN, Cohen M, Belenky A, Atar E, Gideon S. Effect of aging on the adult extrahepatic bile duct: a sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22(9):879–885. doi:10.7863/jum.2003.22.9.879
  33. El-Hayek K, Timratana P, Meranda J, Shimizu H, Eldar S, Chand B. Post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass biliary dilation: natural process or significant entity? J Gastrointest Surg 2012; 16(12):2185–2189. doi:10.1007/s11605-012-2058-4
  34. Park SM, Kim WS, Bae IH, et al. Common bile duct dilatation after cholecystectomy: a one-year prospective study. J Korean Surg Soc 2012; 83(2):97–101. doi:10.4174/jkss.2012.83.2.97
  35. Tse F, Liu L, Barkun AN, Armstrong D, Moayyedi P. EUS: a meta-analysis of test performance in suspected choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67(2):235–244. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2007.09.047
  36. Verma D, Kapadia A, Eisen GM, Adler DG. EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64(2):248–254. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.038
  37. Tseng LJ, Jao YT, Mo LR, Lin RC. Over-the-wire US catheter probe as an adjunct to ERCP in the detection of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54(6):720–723. doi:10.1067/mge.2001.119255
  38. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2005; 54(2):271–275. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.07.007
  39. Attili AF, De Santis A, Capri R, Repice AM, Maselli S. The natural history of gallstones: the GREPCO experience. The GREPCO Group. Hepatology 1995; 21(3):656–660. doi:10.1016/0270-9139(95)90514-6
  40. Sakorafas GH, Milingos D, Peros G. Asymptomatic cholelithiasis: is cholecystectomy really needed? A critical reappraisal 15 years after the introduction of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Dig Dis Sci 2007; 52(5):1313–1325. doi:10.1007/s10620-006-9107-3
  41. Gracie WA, Ransohoff DF. The natural history of silent gallstones: the innocent gallstone is not a myth. N Engl J Med 1982; 307(13):798–800. doi:10.1056/NEJM198209233071305
  42. McSherry CK, Ferstenberg H, Calhoun WF, Lahman E, Virshup M. The natural history of diagnosed gallstone disease in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Ann Surg 1985; 202(1):59–63. doi:10.1097/00000658-198507000-00009
  43. Wada K, Wada K, Imamura T. Natural course of asymptomatic gallstone disease. Nihon Rinsho 1993; 51(7):1737–1743. Japanese.
  44. Halldestam I, Enell EL, Kullman E, Borch K. Development of symptoms and complications in individuals with asymptomatic gallstones. Br J Surg 2004; 91(6):734–738. doi:10.1002/bjs.4547
  45. Festi D, Reggiani ML, Attili AF, et al. Natural history of gallstone disease: expectant management or active treatment? Results from a population-based cohort study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25(4):719–724. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2009.06146.x
  46. Shabanzadeh DM, Sorensen LT, Jorgensen T. A prediction rule for risk stratification of incidentally discovered gallstones: results from a large cohort study. Gastroenterology 2016; 150(1):156–167e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.09.002
  47. Overby DW, Apelgren KN, Richardson W, Fanelli R; Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. SAGES guidelines for the clinical application of laparoscopic biliary tract surgery. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(10):2368–2386. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1268-7
  48. Abraham S, Rivero HG, Erlikh IV, Griffith LF, Kondamudi VK. Surgical and nonsurgical management of gallstones. Am Fam Physician 2014; 89(10):795–802.
  49. Currò G,, Iapichino G, Lorenzini C, Palmeri R, Cucinotta E. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in children with chronic hemolytic anemia. Is the outcome related to the timing of the procedure? Surg Endosc 2006; 20(2):252–255. doi:10.1007/s00464-005-0318-z
  50. Hundal R, Shaffer EA. Gallbladder cancer: epidemiology and outcome. Clin Epidemiol 2014; 6:99–109. doi:10.2147/CLEP.S37357
  51. Chen GL, Akmal Y, DiFronzo AL, Vuong B, O’Connor V. Porcelain gallbladder: no longer an indication for prophylactic cholecystectomy. Am Surg 2015; 81(10):936–940.
  52. Schnelldorfer T. Porcelain gallbladder: a benign process or concern for malignancy? J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17(6):1161–1168. doi:10.1007/s11605-013-2170-0
  53. Warschkow R, Tarantino I, Ukegjini K, et al. Concomitant cholecystectomy during laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in obese patients is not justified: a meta-analysis. Obes Surg 2013; 23(3)3979–408. doi:10.1007/s11695-012-0852-4
  54. Gurusamy K, Samraj K, Gluud C, Wilson E, Davidson BR. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and effectiveness of early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Br J Surg 2010; 97(2):141–150. doi:10.1002/bjs.6870
  55. Papi C, Catarci M, D’Ambrosio L, et al. Timing of cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004; 99(1):147–155. doi:10.1046/j.1572-0241.2003.04002.x
  56. Gurusamy KS, Davidson C, Gluud C, Davidson BR. Early versus delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy for people with acute cholecystitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 6:CD005440. doi:10.1002/14651858
  57. Menahem B, Mulliri A, Fohlen A, Guittet L, Alves A, Lubrano J. Delayed laparoscopic cholecystectomy increases the total hospital stay compared to an early laparoscopic cholecystectomy after acute cholecystitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. HPB (Oxford) 2015; 17(10):857–862. doi:10.1111/hpb.12449
  58. Uhl W, Müller CA, Krähenbühl L, Schmid SW, Schölzel S, Büchler MW. Acute gallstone pancreatitis: timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in mild and severe disease. Surg Endosc 1999; 13(11):1070–1076. doi:10.1007/s004649901175
  59. Aboulian A, Chan T, Yaghoubian A, et al. Early cholecystectomy safely decreases hospital stay in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis: a randomized prospective study. Ann Surg 2010(4): 251:615–619. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181c38f1f
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 85(4)
Issue
Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine - 85(4)
Page Number
323-331
Page Number
323-331
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Gallstones: Watch and wait, or intervene?
Display Headline
Gallstones: Watch and wait, or intervene?
Legacy Keywords
gallstones, cholelithiasis, gallbladder, cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, bile duct, pancreas, pancreatitis, Mounir Ibrahim, Shashank Sarvepalli, Gareth Morris-Stiff, Maged Rizk, Amit Bhatt, Matthew Walsh, Umar Hayat, Ari Garber, John Vargo, Carol Burke
Legacy Keywords
gallstones, cholelithiasis, gallbladder, cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, bile duct, pancreas, pancreatitis, Mounir Ibrahim, Shashank Sarvepalli, Gareth Morris-Stiff, Maged Rizk, Amit Bhatt, Matthew Walsh, Umar Hayat, Ari Garber, John Vargo, Carol Burke
Sections
Inside the Article

KEY POINTS

  • Abdominal pain is the primary symptom associated with gallstones.
  • Abdominal ultrasonography is the diagnostic test of choice to detect gallstones and assess for findings suggestive of acute cholecystitis and dilation of the common bile duct.
  • First-line therapy for asymptomatic gallstones is expectant management.
  • First-line therapy for symptomatic gallstones is cholecystectomy.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 12:15
Un-Gate On Date
Thu, 03/29/2018 - 12:15
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Article PDF Media