Pancreas · 2022
Emergency Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Did Not Increase the Incidence of Postprocedural Pancreatitis Compared With Elective Cases: A Prospective Multicenter Observational Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Nakai Yoshitaka, Kusumoto Kiyonori, Itokawa Yoshio, Inatomi Osamu, Bamba Shigeki, Doi Toshifumi, Kawakami Takumi, Suzuki Takahiro, Suzuki Azumi, Endoh Bunji, Chikugo Koki, Mizumoto Yoshinori, Tanaka Kiyohito
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the incidence of and risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter observational study of 3914 patients who underwent ERCP. We compared the incidence of PEP after emergency and elective ERCP.
RESULTS: A total of 3410 patients were enrolled in this study. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 44 of 800 patients (5.5%) and in 190 of 2418 patients (7.9%) in the emergency and elective groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-1.03; P = 0.07). Multivariate analysis showed that the following factors increased the risk for PEP after emergency ERCP: contrast medium injection into the pancreatic duct (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.30-5.03; P = 0.005), >4 cannulation attempts (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 2.61-12.50; P < 0.001), and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (OR, 9.24; 95% CI, 2.13-40.10; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was noted in the incidence of PEP in patients after emergency and elective ERCP. We may prevent PEP even after emergency ERCP by avoiding contrast injection into the pancreatic duct, multiple cannulation attempts, and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation.
METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter observational study of 3914 patients who underwent ERCP. We compared the incidence of PEP after emergency and elective ERCP.
RESULTS: A total of 3410 patients were enrolled in this study. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 44 of 800 patients (5.5%) and in 190 of 2418 patients (7.9%) in the emergency and elective groups, respectively. No significant difference was noted between the groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-1.03; P = 0.07). Multivariate analysis showed that the following factors increased the risk for PEP after emergency ERCP: contrast medium injection into the pancreatic duct (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.30-5.03; P = 0.005), >4 cannulation attempts (OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 2.61-12.50; P < 0.001), and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (OR, 9.24; 95% CI, 2.13-40.10; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was noted in the incidence of PEP in patients after emergency and elective ERCP. We may prevent PEP even after emergency ERCP by avoiding contrast injection into the pancreatic duct, multiple cannulation attempts, and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation.