Search

Around 10% to 30% patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) do not have a cause after the routine investigations, and are considered as having idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Establishing the etiology in such patients will prevent recurrences and evolution to chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) characteristically are used to diagnose IAP when routine methods fail, but their exact role is not determined. This prospective study was undertaken in a tertiary care hospital, in which patients admitted initially with diagnosis of IAP were evaluated. These patients underwent MRCP and EUS at least 4 weeks after an attack of AP. The results of EUS and MRCP were compared and analyzed with various clinical variables using suitable statistical tests. A total of 31 patients with IAP were included. EUS and/or MRCP was able to establish at least one etiology in 17 patients (54.8%). The diagnoses revealed were gallbladder (GB) microlithiasis, GB sludge, choledocholithiasis, pancreatobiliary ductal anomalies, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of both the modalities, EUS (14/31) was able to diagnose more cases than MRCP (8/31). The diagnostic capability of EUS was lower in patients who had a cholecystectomy (12.5% vs. 56.5%; p = 0.03). EUS and MRCP are useful modalities in the etiological diagnosis of IAP and should be used in conjunction. EUS is better for establishing a possible biliary etiology and MRCP for an anatomical alteration in pancreatobiliary ducts.

Introduction: Staging of liver fibrosis is essential for making therapeutic decisions in patients with Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) having raised Hepatitis B Virus Deoxyribonucleic Acid (HBV DNA) levels (>2000 IU/ml) and normal or mildly elevated Alanine Transaminase (ALT). Though the gold standard for assessment of liver fibrosis has been liver biopsy, many non invasive models have been developed to mitigate the risks associated with liver biopsy and overcome its limitations. Aim: To evaluate the non invasive models predictive of significant fibrosis in this selected subgroup of Chronic Hepatitis B patients. Materials and Methods: Fifty-six CHB patients were evaluated. This longitudinal observational study was conducted at Sir Sunderlal Hospital, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University from February 2017 to July 2018 on 56 patients. Liver Stiffness Measurement (LSM), Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI), FIBROSIS-4 (FIB-4) and Gamma-Glutamyl Transpeptidase (GGT) to platelet ratio (GPR) were estimated. Liver fibrosis staging was done using Metavir score. Significant fibrosis corresponds to Metavir score F2-F4 and advanced fibrosis as more than F3.The performance of non invasive methods was assessed using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves. Z -test was used to compare Area Under ROC Curves (AUROCs). Results: Twenty-one patients (37.5%) had significant fibrosis, out of which seven had F3-F4 fibrosis. Patients with F2-F4 fibrosis had higher age, Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positivity, HBV DNA, ALT, AST, GGT, LSM, APRI, FIB-4 and GPR values than patients with F0-F1 fibrosis. Metavir fibrosis stages positively correlated with LSM values (r=0.831, p

Background and Aims: Acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and chronic HBV infection presenting as acute illness have differing prognosis. Differentiation between acute viral hepatitis B (AVH-B) and chronic hepatitis B with an acute exacerbation (CHB-AE) is difficult if prior hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) status is unknown. This prospective study was undertaken to screen various factors that could help with this differentiation. Methods: All consecutive patients presenting with AVH-B like illness were enrolled in this study and were evaluated as per predefined study protocol. Patients were divided into AVH-B and CHB-AE groups based on HBsAg status at the end of 6 months. Results: Significant differences in clinical and laboratory parameters were found between AVH-B and CHB-AE. No statistically significant difference in prodromal symptoms and jaundice was seen. Ascites (40%) and hepatic encephalopathy (10%) were seen only in patients with CHB-AE (P = 0.002 and 0.244, respectively). Anti-hepatitis B virus core antigen immunoglobulin M (IgM anti-HBc) levels ≥10.15 signal-cutoff-ratio (S/CO) had positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 90% for diagnosis of AVH-B. Hepatitis B virus deoxyriboNucleic acid (HBV DNA) levels ≥25032 IU/mLhas 62.5% PPV and 69% NPV for diagnosis of CHB-AE. Alpha-feto protein (AFP) at >22.5 ng/mLmL for diagnosing CHB-AE has PPV and NPV of 83% and 62%, respectively. All six mortalities were seen in CHB-AE group with median survival of 2 months. Conclusions: Differentiation of AVH-B and CHB-AE is important as management and prognosis differ. Low IgM anti-HBc levels (22.5 ng/mL) favor CHB-AE over AVH-B.