Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) ... [et al.] · 2015
Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with papillary biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy in the diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jung Jae Gu, Lee Jong Kyun, Lee Kwang Hyuck, Lee Kyu Taek, Woo Young Sik, Paik Woo Hyun, Park Do Hyun, Lee Sang Soo, Seo Dong Wan, Lee Sung Koo, Kim Myung-Hwan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: International consensus diagnostic criteria (ICDC) have been proposed for the diagnostic criteria and algorithm of autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP). Although endoscopy is important in the diagnosis of AIP, practical patterns of its usage vary considerably worldwide. This study aimed to compare endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with papillary biopsy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic biopsy for diagnosing AIP using ICDC.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and classified 165 Korean patients diagnosed by Korean criteria from June 2007 to October 2013. Among them, 61 patients underwent ERCP with duodenal papillary biopsy (group A) and 62 patients underwent EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy (group B). We analyzed the diagnostic criteria and levels of each criterion, and type of AIP before and after endoscopic procedures.
RESULTS: ERCP with papillary biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 65.6% (40/61) to 95.1% (58/61) (P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 50.0% (27/62) to 88.7% (55/62) (P < 0.01). The increases of diagnostic sensitivity in two endoscopic methods were not different statistically. In diagnosing definite AIP, EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was more useful than ERCP with papilla biopsy (sensitivity; 79.0% vs. 65.6%, P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was helpful to classify type 1 and type 2 AIP in some patients. Procedure-related complication (mild pancreatitis) developed in one patient (1.6%) in group A and two patients (3.2%) in group B. ERCP with papillary biopsy was less expensive than EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ERCP with papillary biopsy and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy are safe and play important roles in diagnosing AIP according to the ICDC.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed and classified 165 Korean patients diagnosed by Korean criteria from June 2007 to October 2013. Among them, 61 patients underwent ERCP with duodenal papillary biopsy (group A) and 62 patients underwent EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy (group B). We analyzed the diagnostic criteria and levels of each criterion, and type of AIP before and after endoscopic procedures.
RESULTS: ERCP with papillary biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 65.6% (40/61) to 95.1% (58/61) (P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy increased the diagnostic sensitivity from 50.0% (27/62) to 88.7% (55/62) (P < 0.01). The increases of diagnostic sensitivity in two endoscopic methods were not different statistically. In diagnosing definite AIP, EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was more useful than ERCP with papilla biopsy (sensitivity; 79.0% vs. 65.6%, P < 0.01). EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy was helpful to classify type 1 and type 2 AIP in some patients. Procedure-related complication (mild pancreatitis) developed in one patient (1.6%) in group A and two patients (3.2%) in group B. ERCP with papillary biopsy was less expensive than EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ERCP with papillary biopsy and EUS-guided pancreatic biopsy are safe and play important roles in diagnosing AIP according to the ICDC.