MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective single centre randomised single blinded comparative study conducted in HUSM. The primary endpoints for this study are the overall complete stone clearance rate and complication rate, while the secondary outcome for this study are duration of procedure and rate of usage of adjunct methods. Objective data analysis is conducted using independent sample t-test and chi-squared test.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis which is CBD stone. 34 patients were allocated to EST plus EPLBD arm (n=34), and 32 patients were in EST alone arm (n=32) using randomisation method. For intention to treat, patients from EST alone arm that unable to achieve complete stone clearance will be switched to EST plus EPLBD arm. The overall complete stone removal rate for both groups were comparable (EST plus EPLDB: 100% versus EST alone: 93.8%; p= 0.139). The two patients from EST alone group (6.2%) that unable to achieve complete stone clearance were converted to EST plus EPLBD group for intention to treat and able to achieve complete stone clearance by EST plus EPLBD. For procedural time, both arms are comparable as well (EST plus EPLDB: 15.8 minutes vs EST alone: 15.5 minutes; p= 0.860). Complications such as pancreatitis occurred in one patient in EST plus EPLBD arm (EST plus EPLDB: 2.9 % vs EST alone: 0 %; p= 0.328), and bleeding occurred in one patient in EST alone arm (EST plus EPLDB: 0 % vs EST alone: 3.1 %; p= 0.299) , but it is not statistically significant. No perforation or cholangitis complication occurred in both groups. No adjunct usage was observed in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In this study with limited sample size, both EST plus EPLBD and EST alone are effective and has comparable procedural time in removing CBD stone. Even though both methods are equally effective, EPLBD plus EST is an alternative solution if complete stone clearance is unable to achieve via EST alone.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Male patients aged 50 years and above (including indigenous people) with angiographically diagnosed significant CAD in the recent one year were screened for AAA. Standard definition of abdominal aortic aneurysm and CAD was used. All new patients were followed up for six months for AAA events (ruptured AAA and AAA-related mortality).
RESULTS: A total of 277 male patients were recruited into this study. The total prevalence of undiagnosed AAA in this study population was 1.1% (95% CI 0.2-3.1). In patients with high-risk CAD, the prevalence of undiagnosed AAA was 1.7% (95% CI 0.3-4.8). The detected aneurysms ranged in size from 35.0mm to 63.8mm. Obesity was a common factor in these patients. There were no AAA-related mortality or morbidity during the follow-up. Although the total prevalence of undiagnosed AAA is low in the studied population, the prevalence of sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatation in patients with significant CAD was high at 6.6% (95% CI 3.9-10.2), in which majority were within the younger age group than 65 years old.
CONCLUSION: This was the first study on the prevalence of undiagnosed AAA in a significant CAD population involving indigenous people in the island of Borneo. Targeted screening of patients with high-risk CAD even though they are younger than 65 years old effectively discover potentially harmful asymptomatic AAA and sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatations.