Can early precut reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with difficult bile duct cannulation?

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-09-16 DOI:10.4253/wjge.v16.i9.519
Tomohiro Tanikawa, Keisuke Miyake, Mayuko Kawada, Katsunori Ishii, Takashi Fushimi, Noriyo Urata, Nozomu Wada, Ken Nishino, Mitsuhiko Suehiro, Miwa Kawanaka, Hidenori Shiraha, Ken Haruma, Hirofumi Kawamoto
{"title":"Can early precut reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with difficult bile duct cannulation?","authors":"Tomohiro Tanikawa, Keisuke Miyake, Mayuko Kawada, Katsunori Ishii, Takashi Fushimi, Noriyo Urata, Nozomu Wada, Ken Nishino, Mitsuhiko Suehiro, Miwa Kawanaka, Hidenori Shiraha, Ken Haruma, Hirofumi Kawamoto","doi":"10.4253/wjge.v16.i9.519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a variety of adverse events (AEs). One of the most important AEs is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which is most common in cases of difficult biliary cannulation. Although the precut technique has been reported as a PEP risk factor, recent studies indicate that early precut could reduce PEP, and that precut itself is not a risk factor.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the safety of the precut technique, especially in terms of PEP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective study, spanning the period from November 2011 through December 2021. It included 1556 patients, aged ≥ 20 years, who underwent their initial ERCP attempt for biliary disease with a naïve papilla at the Kawasaki University General Medical Center. We compared the PEP risk between the early precut and the delayed precut group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The PEP incidence rate did not significantly differ between the precut and non-precut groups. However, the PEP incidence was significantly lower in the early precut group than the delayed precut group (3.5% <i>vs</i> 10.5%; <i>P</i> = 0.02). The PEP incidence in the delayed precut group without pancreatic stent insertion (17.3%) was significantly higher compared to other cases (<i>P</i> < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings indicate that early precut may reduce PEP incidence. If the precut decision is delayed, a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent PEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":23953,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"16 9","pages":"519-525"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11438581/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v16.i9.519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a variety of adverse events (AEs). One of the most important AEs is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which is most common in cases of difficult biliary cannulation. Although the precut technique has been reported as a PEP risk factor, recent studies indicate that early precut could reduce PEP, and that precut itself is not a risk factor.

Aim: To evaluate the safety of the precut technique, especially in terms of PEP.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study, spanning the period from November 2011 through December 2021. It included 1556 patients, aged ≥ 20 years, who underwent their initial ERCP attempt for biliary disease with a naïve papilla at the Kawasaki University General Medical Center. We compared the PEP risk between the early precut and the delayed precut group.

Results: The PEP incidence rate did not significantly differ between the precut and non-precut groups. However, the PEP incidence was significantly lower in the early precut group than the delayed precut group (3.5% vs 10.5%; P = 0.02). The PEP incidence in the delayed precut group without pancreatic stent insertion (17.3%) was significantly higher compared to other cases (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that early precut may reduce PEP incidence. If the precut decision is delayed, a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent PEP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期预切开能否减轻胆管插管困难患者的内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎?
背景:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)与各种不良事件(AEs)有关。最重要的不良事件之一是 ERCP 术后胰腺炎 (PEP),这在胆道插管困难的病例中最为常见。尽管有报道称预切开技术是导致胰腺炎的一个风险因素,但最近的研究表明,早期预切开可减少胰腺炎的发生,而预切开本身并不是一个风险因素:我们进行了一项回顾性研究,时间跨度为 2011 年 11 月至 2021 年 12 月。研究对象包括 1556 名年龄≥ 20 岁、在川崎大学综合医疗中心因胆道疾病首次尝试 ERCP 且乳头尚未成型的患者。我们比较了早期预切组和延迟预切组的 PEP 风险:结果:预切组与非预切组的 PEP 发生率无明显差异。然而,早期预切割组的 PEP 发生率明显低于延迟预切割组(3.5% vs 10.5%;P = 0.02)。与其他病例相比,未插入胰腺支架的延迟预切组(17.3%)PEP发生率明显更高(P < 0.01):我们的研究结果表明,早期预切可降低PEP的发生率。结论:我们的研究结果表明,早期预切可降低 PEP 的发生率,如果延迟预切,则应植入胰腺支架以预防 PEP。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
5.00%
发文量
1164
期刊最新文献
Motorized spiral enteroscopy: A cautious step forward in technological innovation. Postprandial gastrin-17 level is a useful dynamic marker for atrophic gastritis. Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study. Systemic air embolism associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A case report. Treatment of choice for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: More than clearing the road.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1