Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2010 Nov;72(5):967-74.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.04.007. Epub 2010 Jul 22.

EUS compared with endoscopy plus transabdominal US in the initial diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain

Kenneth J Chang  1 , Richard A Erickson, Amitabh Chak, Charles Lightdale, Yang K Chen, Kenneth F Binmoeller, Gregory C Albers, Wen-Pin Chen, Christine E McLaren, Michael V Sivak, John G Lee, Gerard A Isenberg, Richard C K Wong
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

EUS compared with endoscopy plus transabdominal US in the initial diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain

Kenneth J Chang et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Nov.

Abstract

Background: Primary upper endoscopy (EGD) and transabdominal US (TUS) are often performed in patients with upper abdominal pain.

Objective: Primary: Determine whether the combination of EGD and EUS was equivalent to EGD plus TUS in the diagnostic evaluation of upper abdominal pain. Secondary: Compare EUS versus TUS in detecting abdominal lesions, and compare EGD by using an oblique-viewing echoendoscope versus the standard, forward-viewing endoscope in detecting mucosal lesions.

Design: Prospective, paired design.

Setting: Six academic endoscopy centers.

Patients: This study involved patients with upper abdominal pain referred for endoscopy.

Intervention: All patients had EGD, EUS, and TUS. The EGD was done using both an oblique-viewing echoendoscope and the standard, forward-viewing endoscope (randomized order) by two separate endoscopists in a blinded fashion, followed by EUS. TUS was performed within 4 weeks of EGD/EUS, also in a blinded fashion.

Follow-up: telephone interviews and chart reviews.

Main outcome measurements: Diagnose possible etiology of upper abdominal pain and detect clinically significant lesions.

Results: A diagnosis of the etiology of upper abdominal pain was made in 66 of 172 patients (38%). The diagnostic rate was 42 of 66 patients (64%) for EGD plus EUS versus 41 of 66 patients (62%) for EGD plus TUS, which was statistically equivalent (McNemar test; P = .27). One hundred ninety-eight lesions were diagnosed with either EUS or TUS. EUS was superior to TUS for visualizing the pancreas (P < .0001) and for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis (P = .03). Two biliary stones were detected only by EUS. Two hundred fifty-one mucosal lesions were similarly diagnosed with EGD with either the standard, forward-viewing endoscope or the oblique-viewing echoendoscope (kappa = 0.48 [95% CI, .43-.54]). EGD with the standard, forward-viewing endoscope was preferred for biopsies.

Limitations: No cost analysis.

Conclusion: The combination of EGD with EUS is equivalent to EGD plus TUS for diagnosing a potential etiology of upper abdominal pain. EUS is superior to TUS for detecting chronic pancreatitis. EGD combined with EUS should be considered in the first-line diagnostic evaluation of patients with upper abdominal pain.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Algorithm of patient procedures. UAP, upper abdominal pain; oEGD, EGD with oblique-viewing echoendoscope; TUS, transabdominal US.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Number and percentage of patients with upper abdominal pain with identifiable diagnoses (N = 66). Panc CA, pancreatic cancer; PUD, peptic ulcer disease.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Delaney BC, Wilson S, Roalfe A, et al. Cost effectiveness of initial endos-copy for dyspepsia in patients over age 50 years: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. Lancet. 2000;356:1965–9. - PubMed
    1. Bytzer P, Hansen JM, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell OB. Empirical H2-blocker therapy or prompt endoscopy in management of dyspepsia. Lancet. 1994;343:811–6. - PubMed
    1. Bytzer P. Diagnostic approach to dyspepsia. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2004;18:681–93. - PubMed
    1. Lieberman D, Fennerty MB, Morris CD, et al. Endoscopic evaluation of patients with dyspepsia: results from the national endoscopic data repository. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1067–75. - PubMed
    1. Thorboll J, Vilmann P, Jacobsen B, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in detection of cholelithiasis in patients with biliary pain and negative transabdominal ultrasonography. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:267–9. - PubMed

Publication types