Aim To analyse the impact of the length of antiviral therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) on the renal function in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods A cross-sectional study included 75 patients with CHB treated with tenofovir, who had a normal renal function at the beginning of the treatment. Renal function was determined based on glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) value using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula (MDRD). Measurement of serum creatinine concentration and urinary protein excretion were performed using standard laboratory analyses. Viral load quantification (HBV-DNA) was determined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The degree of liver fibrosis was determined using fibrosis4 (FIB-4) and aspartate transaminase to platelet ratio index (APRI) fibrosis score. Results Out of 75 CHB patients, 37 were on antiviral treatment for up to 2 years (group 1) and 38 patients on antiviral treatment longer than two years (group 2). Mean age of patients was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.076), nor was the gender distribution. There was no statistically significant difference between the mean values of the eGFR in the two groups (91.89±9.24 vs. 88.42±7.84 mL/min/1.73m2; p=0.42), as well as between the mean values of serum creatinine (p=0.360) and 24-hour urine protein excretion (p=0.380). There was no statistically significant correlation between renal parameters and viral load, APRI and FIB-4 fibrosis score. Conclusion Results of our study did not show significant changes in the measured parameters of renal function in group 1 and group 2 of patients, regardless of the length of antiviral treatment, indicating a good renal safety profile of TDF.

Aim To present our experience with a diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in cases of choledocholithiasis verified by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Methods This retrospective study was conducted after a collection of data involving 58 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from January 2013 to December 2015. Patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis on the basis of clinical symptoms and radiological findings and who underwent ERCP were included in this study. The first group (29 patients) underwent EUS, and the second group (29 patients) underwent MRCP. The ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them with ERCP, which was considered to be a gold standard. Results Gender representation was in favour of males, 58:42%. The mean age was 55.5 years. In the group 1 (EUS) 22 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis using ERCP. The EUS stone detection rate was 88%. Endoscopic ultrasound showed sensitivity (97%), specificity (67%) and accuracy (88%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 88%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 80%. In the group 2 (MRCP) 16 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis by ERCP. MRCP sensitivity was 81%, specificity 40%, PPV of 74%, NPV of 50%. Conclusion The EUS was a superior non-invasive tool in comparison with MRCP for detecting choledocholithiasis, which was confirmed using ERCP.

Aim To present our experience with a diagnostic ability of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in cases of choledocholithiasis verified by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Methods This retrospective study was conducted after a collection of data involving 58 suspected choledocholithiasis patients who underwent ERCP from January 2013 to December 2015. Patients who were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis on the basis of clinical symptoms and radiological findings and who underwent ERCP were included in this study. The first group (29 patients) underwent EUS, and the second group (29 patients) underwent MRCP. The ERCP was performed in both groups. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of EUS and MRCP were determined by comparing them with ERCP, which was considered to be a gold standard. Results Gender representation was in favour of males, 58:42%. The mean age was 55.5 years. In the group 1 (EUS) 22 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis using ERCP. The EUS stone detection rate was 88%. Endoscopic ultrasound showed sensitivity (97%), specificity (67%) and accuracy (88%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 88%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 80%. In the group 2 (MRCP) 16 patients were found to have choledocholithiasis by ERCP. MRCP sensitivity was 81%, specificity 40%, PPV of 74%, NPV of 50%. Conclusion The EUS was a superior non-invasive tool in comparison with MRCP for detecting choledocholithiasis, which was confirmed using ERCP.

The goal: The goal of this work was to give advantage to EUS as endoscopic method in diagnosis and following therapeutic treatment of pancreatic cancer in relation to radiological methods of CT and CTA. Material and Methods: The study included 49 patients, 20 women and 29 men hospitalized at the Clinic for gastroenterohepatology, due to suspicion on pancreatic cancer during observed 2 years period. All cancers were histologically and cytologically confirmed. The patients underwent ERCP as a mandatory part of staging and all patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound as well as CT or CT angiography. Results: Testing of differences was carried out using Fisher’s exact test in open-source software R. The following characteristics were tested: involvement of the blood vessels, lymph nodes, metastases, tumor size and duodenum infiltration. Results showed statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level for EUS, CT and CT angiography. Risk ratio showed that EUS is less effective in detecting infiltration of blood vessels within a malignant process then CTA where RR=0.52, CI 0.2–1.38, p-value=0.33. EUS and CTA are equal in the diagnosis of enlarged lymph nodes affected by malignancy where RR=1.3, CI 0.75–1.42, p-value=0.09. Comparison according to distant metastases showed that EUS is less effective compared to CT in approximately 30% of cases. In the diagnosis of duodenal infiltration EUS is in 5% of cases less accurate than the CT with the RR=0.95, CI 0.27–3.32, p-value=0.76, but the CTA method is more efficient because the comparison of EUS and CTA showed RR=12.52, CI 0.2–1.38, p-value=0.33. EUS as a diagnostic method is dominant in determining the size of malignant lesions located in the pancreas as compared to CT and CTA. Conclusion: EUS as endoscopic method compared to CT and CTA is one of the more invasive methods of examination but due to its ability to be performed immediately, to locate a changes smaller than 5 mm and the target biopsy option, to measure the change and that in many cases determine the relationship of malignant lesions with blood vessels, along with visualization of the surrounding lymph nodes and metastases in neighboring organs, we may give this method an advantage over other methods in the preoperative staging of patients with pancreatic cancer.