Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and Aims:

Single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy (SOC-EHL) is effective and safe in difficult choledocholithiasis. The optimal timing of SOC-EHL use, however, in refractory stones has not been elucidated. The following aims to determine the most cost-effective timing of SOC-EHL introduction in the management of choledocholithiasis.

Methods:

A cost-effectiveness model was developed assessing three strategies with a progressively delayed introduction of SOC-EHL. Probability estimates of patient pathways were obtained from a systematic review. The unit of effectiveness is complete ductal clearance without need for surgery. Cost is expressed in 2018 US dollars and stem from outpatient US databases.

Results:

The three strategies achieved comparable ductal clearance rates ranging from 97.3% to 99.7%. The least expensive strategy is to perform SOC-EHL during the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiography pancreatography (ERCP) (SOC-1: 18,506$). The strategy of postponing the use of SOC-EHL to the third ERCP (SOC-3) is more expensive (US$18,895) but is 2% more effective. (0.9967). SOC-EHL during the second ERCP in the model (SOC-2) is the least cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses show altered conclusions according to the cost of SOC-EHL, effectiveness of conventional ERCP, and altered willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds with early SOC-1 being the most optimal approach below a WTP cut-off of US$20,295.

Conclusions:

Early utilization of SOC-EHL (SOC-1) in difficult choledocholithiasis may be the least costly strategy with an effectiveness approximating those achieved with a delayed approach where one or more conventional ERCP(s) are reattempted prior to SOC-EHL introduction.

Keywords

choledocholithiasis decision model ductal stone clearance endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography timing of cholangioscopy

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography pancreatography (ERCP) is the standard of care in the management of choledocholithiasis. Different techniques have been developed including balloon sphincteroplasty, mechanical lithotripsy, and stent insertion for stone dissolution.¹ Overall, ductal clearance rates with traditional ERCP range from 87% to 100%.^2–5 Difficult bile duct stones, however, often require multiple ERCP sessions, increasing the risk for procedure-related adverse events, patient inconvenience, and cost. Single-operator cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy (SOC-EHL) has recently gained widespread adoption in the management of difficult stones with the advent of improved cholangioscopy technology and high clinical success.⁶ Several expert societies have advocated for the use of SOC-EHL with failure of conventional ERCP.^7,8 In addition, compared with mechanical lithotripsy, SOC-EHL appears to be cost-effective.⁹

Nevertheless, due to the high up-front cost of SOC-EHL, most institutions have adopted a step-up approach to difficult stones starting with traditional ERCP and only proceeding to SOC-EHL following multiple failed ERCP. This strategy is largely based on data supporting the role of plastic stent insertion and stone dissolution with high rates of ductal clearance on repeat ERCPs.¹⁰ The optimal timing of SOC-EHL introduction in the management algorithm remains unclear. A delayed approach allows for the possibility of clearing the stones without the need for SOC-EHL. This option, however, is likely associated with more procedures and patient inconvenience, with the potential for higher cumulative rates of adverse events and its associated costs. Early introduction of SOC-EHL, on the other hand, may be accompanied with fewer procedures and greater patient satisfaction, but its adoption is often limited due to the greater up-front costs. We thus aimed to determine the most cost-effective timing of SOC-EHL utilization in the endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones.

Methods

Model design

A decision tree was used to model the clinical successes and failures of three different strategies in managing patients with difficult biliary stones with ERCP and SOC-EHL. This type of analysis was chosen to ascertain simultaneously the effectiveness and costs of competing strategies. Difficult biliary stones are defined as choledocholithiasis with failure of complete ductal clearance using conventional ERCP methods including sphincterotomy with balloon or basket stone extraction with or without sphincteroplasty and mechanical lithotripsy. As such, every patient included in the model is presumed to have failed ductal clearance with an initial, elective ERCP. The numbering of ERCPs in our decision tree, therefore, does not include this initial failed procedure. The model thus outlines three possible strategies of EHL-SOC (SOC-1, SOC-2, SOC-3). The first strategy (SOC-1) introduces SOC-EHL immediately at the first ERCP. The second option (SOC-2) introduces SOC-EHL at the second ERCP for incomplete ductal clearance. The final option (SOC-3) introduces SOC-EHL during the third ERCP for persistent choledocholithiasis. A plastic biliary stent is presumed to be inserted with each failed procedure. For all three strategies, if ductal clearance is not achieved following SOC-EHL, a second SOC-EHL session is subsequently carried out. Surgery is considered as a final option if ductal clearance is not achieved after two ERCP with SOC-EHL. Patients are followed for adverse events following each endoscopic session over a 6-month time horizon. Death is not considered in the model due to the extremely low rates of mortality attributable to choledocholithiasis without cholangitis. The software TreeAge Suite 2018 (Williamstown, MA, USA)¹¹ was used for construction of the model (Figure 1) and for the cost-effectiveness analysis.

Figure 1.

Structure of the model.

Probability and cost assumptions

Probabilities for failure and complications at each step were obtained from a systematic review of literature from January 1980 to December 2018 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of knowledge. The selection of articles utilized a highly sensitive search strategy to identify citations with a combination of MeSH headings adapted to each database and text words related to (1) cholangioscopy or lithotripsy, (2) Spyglass^®, electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Recursive searches and cross-referencing were also carried out using a “similar articles” function; furthermore, hand searches of articles were also performed. All fully reported published studies were included. For costs, a third-party perspective was adopted including only direct costs. Our model was designed to be representative of the national costs in the American health care system. Physician fees were provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services.¹² These fees are national averages according to types of visits and medical specialties in the United States. Equipment costs for SOC-EHL were provided by the Endoscopy purchasing department of a US hospital¹³ for Spyglass^® (Boston Scientific Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA¹⁴). Costs for the cholangioscopy and lithotripsy generators were amortized over their anticipated lifespan and determined as an individual cost per use (which is added to the single use of the rest of the equipment). The lifespan of both the cholangioscopy and lithotripsy generators were estimated to be 5 years, as per the manufacturer, with an estimated 50 cases/year. The cost of the generator per use was therefore calculated by dividing the total cost of the generator by 250 cases (50 cases/year × 5 years). Stent prices and facility fees for ERCP were obtained from Boston Scientific Inc. (Marlborough, MA, USA).¹⁴ The cost of surgery and adverse events with their respective hospitalization costs and lengths of stay were computed using weighted national data from the American National Inpatient Sample (NIS)¹⁵ which gathers more than 7 million discharges collected from almost 5,000 hospitals in 47 American states. The NIS has been extensively used in previous cost-effectiveness analyses^16–19 and its weighted methodology ensures that it is representative of the national health care costs from all types of insurances in the United States. The cost of surgery was based on the adult inpatient records registered under ICD-10 codes: K80.42 calculus of bile duct with acute cholecystitis without obstruction, K80.44 calculus of bile duct with chronic cholecystitis without obstruction, and K80.50 calculus of bile duct without cholangitis or cholecystitis without obstruction. Adverse event costs were ascertained from adult hospitalizations recorded in the NIS that included K83.0 cholangitis, K92.2 gastrointestinal hemorrhage, unspecified, and K85.9 acute pancreatitis, unspecified. The weights associated with each of these three codes varied according to the probability estimates obtained from the literature review.

The US consumer price index for medical care services from the Bureau of Labor Statistics²⁰ was used, when necessary, to express all costs in 2018 US$.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

The unit of effectiveness was defined as complete ductal clearance without the need for surgery over the 6-month time horizon. The total cumulative representative costs were computed for each path in the tree, thus each terminal node computes the average individual total cost per patient treated at the end of the 6-month time horizon. Results are reported as cost, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness ratio, net monetary benefit, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The willingness-to-pay (WTP) was fixed a priori at US$50,000^16–18,21 with a posteriori sensitivity analysis to assess how varying this threshold altered the results.

Sensitivity analysis

Deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed on all 50 variables of the model. The value of each parameter was varied inside its respective prefixed ranges, whereas other input variables remained unchanged. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis explored further but simultaneously the impact of variability across all model parameters. One hundred thousand simulations generated by the model using different values of variables were run as part of the Monte-Carlo analysis and are summarized with a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve and scatterplot graph. The reporting of our results is in accordance with the standards put forth in the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards Statements.²² Ethics approval or consent was not required given the use of prior public cost data with no patient identifiers.

Results

The systematic review yielded 1870 articles (PRISMA diagram, Figure 2). After abstract screening, 59 articles were included that addressed the management of patients with difficult bile duct stones having failed prior ERCP. A total of 24 articles were used in the analysis with data abstracted from their full text.^10,23–45

Figure 2.

PRISMA flow diagram.

Tables 1 and 2 list the cost and probability input variables entered in the model, with their respective ranges. Cost variables are associated with β-distributions and probabilities with γ-distributions. All three strategies cost approximately US$20,000 per treatment (Table 3). The three strategies achieved clinically comparable effectiveness rates ranging from 97.3% to 99.7%. The least expensive strategy is to perform SOC-EHL during the first ERCP (SOC-1: 18,506$). The strategy of postponing the use of SOC-EHL at the third ERCP (SOC-3) is more expensive (US$18,895) but presents the highest measure of effectiveness (0.9967) among the three options. The strategy of introducing SOC-EHL during the second ERCP in the model (SOC-2) was the most costly and was economically dominated by SOC-3.

Table 1.

Length of stay and cost data used in the model.

Category	Description	Baseline value	Lower bound	Upper bound	Source
Equipment	Basket	112	78	146	¹³
Equipment	CRE balloon	213	149	277	¹³
Equipment	Electrohydraulic Lithotripsy probe	429	300	558	¹³
Equipment	Electrohydraulic lithotripsy generator	62	43	81	¹³
Equipment	Cholangioscopy generator	435	304	566	¹³
Equipment	Retrieval balloon	115	80	150	¹³
Equipment	SOC-EHL	2450	1715	3185	¹³
Equipment	Sphincterotome	149	104	194	¹³
Equipment	Wire	341	238	444	¹³
Equipment	ERCP facility	4294	3005	5583	¹⁴
Equipment	Plastic stent	105	73	137	¹⁴
Hospitalization	Per diem for cholangitis	14,060	9842	18,278	¹⁵
Hospitalization	Per diem for gastrointestinal bleeding	10,311	7217	13,405	¹⁵
Hospitalization	Per diem for pancreatitis	8390	5873	10,907	¹⁵
Hospitalization	Per diem for surgery	12,392	8674	16,110	¹⁵
Physician fees	ERCP remove duct calculi	386	270	502	¹²
Physician fees	ERCP lithotripsy calculi	458	320	596	¹²
Physician fees	Endoscopic pancreatoscopy	126	88	164	¹²
Physician fees	ERCP duct stent placement	489	342	636	¹²
Physician fees	ERCP remove foreign body duct	399	279	519	¹²
Physician fees	ERCP stent exchange with dilatation	510	357	663	¹²
Physician fees	ERCP duct dilatation	401	280	522	¹²
Physician fees	Choledochotomy	1396	977	1815	¹²
Physician fees	Anastomosis	2581	1806	3356	¹²
Physician fees	Initial hospital care	103	72	134	⁸
Physician fees	Subsequent hospital inpatient care	40	28	52	⁸
Physician fees	Office consultation	69	48	90	⁸
Physician fees	Inpatient consultation	50	35	65	⁸
Physician fees	Anethesia for ERCP	255	178	332	⁸
Physician fees	Anesthesia for surgery	288	201	375	⁸
Length of stay	Cholangitis	4.6	3	6	¹¹
Length of stay	Gastrointestinal bleeding	4.2	2	6	¹¹
Length of stay	Pancreatitis	4	2	6	¹¹
Length of stay	Surgery	3.8	2	5	¹¹

All costs are expressed in 2018US$. Length of stay is in days.

ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography; SOC-EHL, single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

Table 2.

Probabilities used in the model.

Category	Description	Baseline value	Lower bound	Upper bound	Source
Complication 1 (see Figure 1)	Overall occurrence	0.065	0.04	0.09	⁴¹
Complication 1 (composition)	Proportion of cholangitis	0.21	0.14	0.28	⁴¹
Complication 1 (composition)	Proportion of gastrointestinal bleeding	0.16	0.11	0.21	⁴¹
Complication 1 (composition)	Proportion of pancreatitis	0.63	0.44	0.82	⁴¹
Complication 2 (see Figure 1)	Overall occurrence	0.067	0.04	0.09	^{23–24,27–30,32–33,35–38}
Complication 2 (composition)	Proportion of cholangitis	0.44	0.3	0.58	^{23–24,27–30,32–33,35–38}
Complication 2 (composition)	Proportion of gastrointestinal bleeding	0.35	0.24	0.46	^{23–24,27–30,32–33,35–38}
Complication 2 (composition)	Proportion of pancreatitis	0.21	0.14	0.28	^{23–24,27–30,32–33,35–38}
Complication 3 (see Figure 1)	Overall occurrence	0.061	0.04	0.08	^{18–21,23,31,34}
Complication 3 (composition)	Proportion of cholangitis	0.25	0.17	0.33	^{18–21,23,31,34}
Complication 3 (composition)	Proportion of gastrointestinal bleeding	0.38	0.26	0.5	^{18–21,23,31,34}
Complication 3 (composition)	Proportion of pancreatitis	0.37	0.25	0.49	^{18–21,23,31,34}
Success rate	N1 (see Figure 1)	0.66	0.46	0.86	^18–40
Success rate	N2 (see Figure 1)	0.64	0.44	0.84	^18–40
Success rate	N3 (see Figure 1)	0.77	0.53	1	^18–40
Success rate	N4 (see Figure 1)	0.88	0.61	1	^18–40

All costs are expressed in 2018US$.

ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography; SOC-EHL, single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

Table 3.

CEA report.

Strategy	Cost	Incremental cost	Effectiveness	Incremental effectiveness	Cost-effectiveness ratio	Net Monetary benefit	Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio
SOC-1	18,506		0.9735		19,009	30,171		Undominated
SOC-3	18,895	390	0.9967	0.0232	18,957	30,942	16,784	Undominated
SOC-2	19,240	734	0.9909	0.0174	19,417	30,304	42,313	Absolutely dominated

Willingness-to-pay is fixed at US$50,000.

All costs are expressed in 2018US$.

CEA: cost effectiveness analysis

SOC-EHL, single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy.

SOC-1: SOC-EHL used at initial step; SOC-2: SOC-EHL use postponed at second step; SOC-3: SOC-EHL use postponed at third step.

The deterministic sensitivity analysis is shown in Figure 3 and Table 4 and demonstrates that if the cost of SOC-EHL decreases below US$1,732, SOC-1 becomes optimal (the most acceptable strategy with a fixed WTP of US$50,000). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve generated by the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (Figure 4) shows that SOC-2 is always dominated by SOC-3. The strategy or choice when comparing SOC-1 with SOC-3 varies depending on the threshold value adopted for the WTP. SOC-3 is chosen in 65% of these simulations (inside plausible scenarios) versus 35% for SOC-1 at the base-case analysis WTP value of US$50,000. The scatterplot comparing SOC-1 with SOC-3 shows the dispersion of the Monte-Carlo simulations of SOC-1 cases compared with SOC-3 (Figure 5 included in appendix). When the WTP threshold drops below US$20,295, SOC-1 becomes the approach most often chosen.

Figure 3.

Tornado diagram: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (SOC-1 versus SOC-3).

Table 4.

Relevant values highlighted by the one-way sensitivity analysis.

Variables	Baseline value in the model	Below this value		Above this value
Cost of the SOC-EHL scope, in US$	2450	1732	SOC-1 becomes optimal^*	2813	SOC-3 dominates both SOC-1 and SOC-2
Success rate of conventional ERCP after ERCP at the initial step (SOC-1 and SOC-2 arms)	0.65			0.69	SOC-3 dominates both SOC-1 and SOC-2
Success rate of conventional ERCP after first failure of ERCP (SOC-3 arm)	0.64	0.56	SOC-2 is no more dominated	0.73	SOC-3 dominates both SOC-1 and SOC-2
Success rate of the combination ERCP+SOC-EHL after first failure of combination of ERCP+SOC-EHL (all arms)	0.77	0.74	SOC-3 dominates both SOC-1 and SOC-2	0.91	SOC-2 is no more dominated, and SOC-1 is optimal
Success rate of the combination ERCP+SOC-EHL at the last step and after failure of combination of ERCP+SOC-EHL (all arms)	0.88	0.74	SOC-3 dominates both SOC-1 and SOC-2	0.94	SOC-2 is no more dominated, and SOC-1 is optimal

SOC-1 is both less effective and less expensive but with an ICER below the willingness-to-pay (whereas SOC-3 exceeds the willingness-to-pay).

ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography; SOC-EHL, single-operator cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy (Spyglass^®, Boston Scientific Inc., Marlborough, MA, USA).¹⁵

Willingness-to-pay is fixed at US$50,000.

SOC-1: SOC-EHL used at initial step; SOC-2: SOC-EHL use postponed at second step; SOC-3: SOC-EHL use postponed at third step.

Figure 4.

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve.

Discussion

SOC-EHL is a major advancement in the technique of ERCP. Its ease of use and well-established effectiveness have made it a popular modality in the management of patients with difficult bile duct stones.⁷ Although shown to be cost-effective and advocated by expert societies in the management of difficult stones, most centers will defer the use of SOC-EHL until at least one or two failures with conventional ERCP given the high up-front cost of SOC-EHL, extensive experience with mechanical lithotripsy, and high ductal clearance rates with repeated ERCP following stent-induced stone dissolution. Using the Belgium health care model, Deprez et al.⁹ have recently demonstrated that SOC-EHL is cost-effective when compared with traditional ERCP with mechanical lithotripsy. The optimal timing of SOC-EHL introduction in the algorithm of endoscopic difficult stone management, however, has not been elucidated, and guidelines remain equivocal or silent in addressing this important aspect.^7,46 To our knowledge, the current analysis is the first to specifically study the timing of SOC-EHL in the endoscopic management of difficult stones based on considerations of cost-effectiveness. Our results show that early use of SOC-EHL (SOC-1) is the least expensive strategy with an ICER of US$16,784 (i.e. per additional successfully treated patient) while delaying SOC-EHL to the third procedure after two failed ERCP (SOC-3) is the most effective. Interestingly, delaying SOC-EHL to the second ERCP (SOC-2 approach) was dominated, making it the least cost-effective strategy as it is comparatively not cheap enough for the additional effectiveness it achieves when compared with SOC-3.

When comparing SOC-1 with SOC-3, there is no clear-cut dominant strategy. SOC-1 is less costly while SOC-3 is 2% more effective. This small difference in effectiveness is explained by two more attempts at stone extraction prior to SOC-EHL. As clinicians, it is important to realize that the 2% increase in success rate does not account for a patient’s quality of life, which was not measured in our model due to a paucity of data on the topic and the short time horizon of the medical condition, as has been discussed previously.⁴² Causes of altered quality of life can include recurrent visits for invasive instrumentation and persistence of an obstructive stone with its associated complications, such as cholangitis. Had QALYs been used as unit of effectiveness, this would likely have increased the cost-effectiveness of SOC-1 due to the need for fewer re-interventions.

Nevertheless, the most cost-effective strategy in our analysis between SOC-1 and SOC-3 largely depends on the cost of the SOC-EHL equipment and WTP threshold adopted by a decision taker. Although the cost of cholangioscopy in our base-case analysis was set at 2,450$, which is representative of the current US market, dropping SOC-EHL costs below US$1,732 make SOC-1 the optimal strategy for the pre-set WTP of US$50,000. In terms of WTP, although there is no single accepted WTP threshold,^47–49 a US$50,000 cut-off was used in our base-case analysis similarly to prior endoscopic cost-effectiveness studies addressing acute disease processes.^16–18,21 In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a lower WTP threshold of US$20,000 favors the SOC-1 approach, whereas greater thresholds favor the increased effectiveness yet at an increased cost attributable to the repeated attempts strategy (SOC-3). Overall, it appears that early SOC-1 is the preferred strategy in clinical practice, given that it is the least costly while being associated with the fewest procedures with a minimal decrease in effectiveness when compared with delaying SOC-EHL to the third ERCP (SOC-3). Our results will hopefully assist budget managers and clinicians in adopting a cost-effective approach to this clinical problem, keeping in mind current cost restraints in the dispensation of medical care.

One limitation of our study is the lack of controlled data, putting the model assumptions at risk for overestimation of clinical success and under-reporting of associated complications among included studies. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed in an effort to minimize the effects of these shortcomings. As aforementioned, quality of life data were not used for our analysis due to a lack of data on the topic. Additionally, we did not consider laser lithotripsy of bile duct stones, because of its rarer adoption in North American endoscopy units. However, the extensive variations of costs of SOC-EHL equipment in our sensitivity analysis likely account for the effectiveness and cost ranges of laser lithotripsy.

In conclusion, this cost-effective analysis shows that early introduction of SOC-EHL is the least expensive strategy with a surgery-free stone clearance that clinically approximates its later introduction following repeated conventional ERCP attempts. Sensitivity analyses characterized the variability of our conclusions based on alterations in cost and probability assumptions. Decision makers will need to individualize their choices based on local resources and expertise. Data from high-quality prospective randomized trials are ideally needed to confirm these findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tag-10.1177_17562848211031388 – Supplemental material for Early cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy in difficult biliary stones is cost-effective

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tag-10.1177_17562848211031388 for Early cholangioscopy-assisted electrohydraulic lithotripsy in difficult biliary stones is cost-effective by Saad Alrajhi, Alan Barkun, Viviane Adam, Kashi Callichurn, Myriam Martel, Olaya Brewer, Mouen A. Khashab, Nauzer Forbes, Majid A. Almadi and Yen-I Chen in Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology

Footnotes

Conflict of interest statement

Alan Barkun is a consultant for Pendopharm Inc., Boston Scientific Inc., Olympus Inc., Cook Inc., and ATGen Inc.

Mouen Khashab is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Medtronic.

Nauzer Forbes is a consultant for Boston Scientific and has received speaking fees and research funding from Pentax.

Yen-I Chen is a consultant for Boston Scientific.

No disclosures for the remaining authors.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Yen-I Chen

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kedia

Tarnasky

. Endoscopic management of complex biliary stone disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2019; 29: 257–275.

Bergman

Rauws

Fockens

, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bileduct stones. Lancet 1997; 349: 1124–1129.

Colton

Curran

. Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 457–467.

Elfant

Bourke

Alhalel

, et al. A prospective study of the safety of endoscopic therapy for choledocholithiasis in an outpatient population. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91: 1499–1502.

Chang

Wang

, et al. Preoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment of patients with cholecystocholedocholithiasis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2002; 9: 191–195.

Jin

Wei

Tang

, et al. Single-operator peroral cholangioscope in treating difficult biliary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 256–269.

Manes

Paspatis

Aabakken

, et al. Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 472–491.

Williams

Beckingham

El Sayed

, et al. Updated guideline on the management of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Gut 2017; 66: 765–782.

Deprez

Garces Duran

Moreels

, et al. The economic impact of using single-operator cholangioscopy for the treatment of difficult bile duct stones and diagnosis of indeterminate bile duct strictures. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 109–118.

10.

Horiuchi

Nakayama

Kajiyama

, et al. Biliary stenting in the management of large or multiple common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1200–1203 e2.

11.

Healthcare Module. Volume January, 2018. Williamstown, MA: TreeAge Software Inc., 2018.

12.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

13.

John Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA.

14.

Boston Scientific Corporation Inc., Marlborough, MA.

15.

Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. 2015.

16.

Barkun

Adam

, et al. Using hemospray improves the cost-effectiveness ratio in the management of upper gastrointestinal nonvariceal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52: 36–44.

17.

Barkun

Adam

Martel

, et al. Partially covered self-expandable metal stents versus polyethylene stents for malignant biliary obstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 29: 377–383.

18.

Chen

Barkun

Adam

, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lumen-apposing metal stents with plastic stents in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 267–276.e1.

19.

Chen

Khashab

Adam

, et al. Plastic stents are more cost-effective than lumen-apposing metal stents in management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E780–E788.

20.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

21.

Barkun

Adam

Martel

, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis: stress ulcer bleeding prophylaxis with proton pump inhibitors, H2 receptor antagonists. Value Health 2013; 16: 14–22.

22.

Husereau

Drummond

Petrou

, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. Value Health 2013; 16: e1–e5.

23.

Aslan

Arabul

Celik

, et al. The effect of biliary stenting on difficult common bile duct stones. Prz Gastroenterol 2014; 9: 109–115.

24.

Aujla

Ladep

Dwyer

, et al. Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilatation with sphincterotomy is safe and effective for biliary stone removal independent of timing and size of sphincterotomy. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 8597–8604.

25.

Chang

Chu

Wang

, et al. Outcome of simple use of mechanical lithotripsy of difficult common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 593–596.

26.

Colan-Hernandez

Aldana

Concepcion

, et al. Optimal timing for a second ERCP after failure of initial biliary cannulation following precut sphincterotomy: an analysis of experience at two tertiary centers. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 3711–3717.

27.

Draganov

Lin

Chauhan

, et al. Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with a new direct visualization system. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 971–979.

28.

Franzini

Moura

Bonifacio

, et al. Complex biliary stones management: cholangioscopy versus papillary large balloon dilation - a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E131–E138.

29.

Gutierrez

Bekkali

NLH

Raijman

, et al. Efficacy and safety of digital single-operator cholangioscopy for difficult biliary stones. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 6: 918–926.

30.

Hui

Lai

, et al. Retained common bile duct stones: a comparison between biliary stenting and complete clearance of stones by electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003; 17: 289–296.

31.

Kamiyama

Ogura

Okuda

, et al. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy for difficult bile duct stones under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and peroral transluminal cholangioscopy guidance. Gut Liver 2018; 12: 457–462.

32.

Kurihara

Yasuda

Isayama

, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy in biliopancreatic diseases: prospective multicenter study in Japan. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 1891–1901.

33.

Laleman

Verraes

Van Steenbergen

, et al. Usefulness of the single-operator cholangioscopy system SpyGlass in biliary disease: a single-center prospective cohort study and aggregated review. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2223–2232.

34.

Lee

Moon

Choi

, et al. Direct peroral cholangioscopy using an ultraslim upper endoscope for management of residual stones after mechanical lithotripsy for retained common bile duct stones. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 819–824.

35.

Lesmana

. Endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones. Med J Indones 2019; 8: 246–251.

36.

Guo

Zhang

, et al. A new hybrid anchoring balloon for direct peroral cholangioscopy using an ultraslim upper endoscope. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 364–371.

37.

Maydeo

Kwek

Bhandari

, et al. Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy in patients with difficult biliary and pancreatic ductal stones (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1308–1314.

38.

Odemis

Kuzu

Oztas

, et al. Endoscopic management of the difficult bile duct stones: a single tertiary center experience. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 8749583.

39.

Sandha

. Single-operator cholangioscopy is more cost-effective than bile duct exploration for management of difficult common bile duct stones after failed conventional ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: AB599.

40.

Sioulas

El-Masry

Groth

, et al. Prospective evaluation of the short access cholangioscopy for stone clearance and evaluation of indeterminate strictures. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2017; 16: 96–103.

41.

Swahn

Edlund

Enochsson

, et al. Ten years of Swedish experience with intraductal electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy for the treatment of difficult bile duct stones: an effective and safe option for octogenarians. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 1011–1016.

42.

Turowski

Hugle

Dormann

, et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy with SpyGlassDS: results of a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 3981–3988.

43.

Ueda

Kikuyama

Kodama

, et al. Short-term biliary stent placement contributing common bile duct stone disappearance with preservation of duodenal papilla function. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 6153893.

44.

Hartery

Lee

Doherty

, et al. Covered self-expanding metal stents for the management of common bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 181–186.

45.

Dong

Singh

Zhao

, et al. Sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation versus sphincterotomy alone for choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 763–771.

46.

Committee

Komanduri

Thosani

, et al. Cholangiopancreatoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 209–221.

47.

Cookson

. Willingness to pay methods in health care: a sceptical view. Health Econ 2003; 12: 891–894.

48.

Grosse

. Assessing cost-effectiveness in healthcare. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2008; 8: 165–178.

49.

Hole

Kolstad

. Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment. Empir Econ 2012; 42: 445–469.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.30 MB