PloS one · 2018
Risk of pancreatitis after pancreatic duct guidewire placement during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Ishikawa-Kakiya Yuki, Shiba Masatsugu, Maruyama Hirotsugu, Kato Kunihiro, Fukunaga Shusei, Sugimori Satoshi, Otani Koji, Hosomi Shuhei, Tanaka Fumio, Nagami Yasuaki, Taira Koichi, Yamagami Hirokazu, Tanigawa Tetsuya, Watanabe Toshio, Fujiwara Yasuhiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Advanced techniques have been developed to overcome difficult cannulation cases in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Pancreatic duct guidewire placement method (PGW) is performed in difficult cannulation cases; it is possible that it places patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The mechanism of PEP is still unclear, but pancreatic duct pressure and injury of pancreatic duct are known causes of PEP. Therefore, we hypothesized a relationship between pancreatic duct diameter and PEP and predicted that PGW would increase the risk of PEP in patients with non-dilated pancreatic ducts. This study aimed to investigate whether PGW increased the risk of PEP in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm.
METHODS: We analyzed 332 patients with pancreatic duct ≤ 3 mm who performed first time ERCP session. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse event of PEP. We evaluated the risk of PEP in patients who had undergone PGW compared to those who had not, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.
RESULTS: PGW was found to be an independent risk factor for PEP by univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-5.38; p = 0.03) after IPTW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm. Adjusted for all covariates, PGW remained an independent risk factor for PEP (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.33-7.33; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that PGW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm increases the risk of PEP.
METHODS: We analyzed 332 patients with pancreatic duct ≤ 3 mm who performed first time ERCP session. The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse event of PEP. We evaluated the risk of PEP in patients who had undergone PGW compared to those who had not, using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis.
RESULTS: PGW was found to be an independent risk factor for PEP by univariate analysis (odds ratio [OR], 2.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12-5.38; p = 0.03) after IPTW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm. Adjusted for all covariates, PGW remained an independent risk factor for PEP (OR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.33-7.33; p = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that PGW in patients with pancreatic duct diameter ≤ 3 mm increases the risk of PEP.