The value of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography for the exclusion of choledocholithiasis

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the ability of Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) to exclude choledocholithiasis (CDL) in symptomatic patients.

Material and methods: Patients suspected of choledocholithiasis who underwent MRCP from 2008 through 2013 in a population based study at the National University Hospital of Iceland were retrospectively analysed, using ERCP and/or intraoperative cholangiography as a gold standard diagnosis for CDL.

Results: Overall 920 patients [66% women, mean age 55 years (SD 21)] underwent MRCP. A total of 392 patients had a normal MRCP of which 71 underwent an ERCP investigation demonstrating a CBD stone in 29 patients. A normal MRCP was found to have a 93% negative predictive value (NPV) and 89% probability of having no CBD stone demonstrated as well as no readmission due to gallstone disease within six months following MRCP. During a 6-month follow-up period of the 321 patients who did not undergo an ERCP nine (2.8%) patients were readmitted with right upper quadrant pain and elevated liver tests which later normalised with no CBD stone being demonstrated, three (0.9%) patients were readmitted with presumed gallstone pancreatitis, two (0.6%) patients were readmitted with cholecystitis and two (0.6%) patients were lost to follow-up. Seven patients of those 321 underwent an intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) and all were negative for CBD stones. For the sub-group requiring ERCP following a normal MRCP the NPV was 63%.

Conclusion: Our results support the use of MRCP as a tool for exclusion of choledocholithiasis with the potential to reduce the amount of unnecessary ERCP procedures.

Keywords:

• Choledocholithiasis
• common bile duct
• ERCP
• intraoperative cholangiogram
• logistic regression
• MRCP

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Hjörtur H. Jónsson for his invaluable support and guidance in the statistical analysis. The study was granted permission from the National Bioethics Committee of Iceland.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Funding information

Researchers were not supported with any direct funding.