Utility and safety of ERCP in the elderly: a comparative study in iran.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-07-09 DOI:10.1155/2012/439320
Amir Houshang Mohammad Alizadeh, Esmaeil Shamsi Afzali, Anahita Shahnazi, Azare Sanati, Dariush Mirsattari, Mohammad Reza Zali
{"title":"Utility and safety of ERCP in the elderly: a comparative study in iran.","authors":"Amir Houshang Mohammad Alizadeh,&nbsp;Esmaeil Shamsi Afzali,&nbsp;Anahita Shahnazi,&nbsp;Azare Sanati,&nbsp;Dariush Mirsattari,&nbsp;Mohammad Reza Zali","doi":"10.1155/2012/439320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. The present study sought and compared the utility and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the elderly and younger people in a great sample of Iranian population. Methods. Our study involved 780 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP at the Taleghani hospital in Tehran between 2010 and 2011; among them, 558 patients were less than 70 years old and others were 70 years old or older. The patients were prospectively identified and data including clinical and biochemical features, ERCP procedures, ERCP diagnosis, and ERCP complications were gathered on them prospectively. Results. Clinical manifestations were comparable in young and older groups except for hepatosplenomegaly and constipation that were more prevalent in the elderly. Laboratory findings were similar in both groups other than mean levels of alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin and albumin levels, which were higher in the elderly group. Selective biliary cannulation was technically more successful in the younger than in others (89.0% versus 81.8%). Common bile duct stone was the most frequent diagnosis in both young and older groups (36.6% and 45.9%, resp.), whereas ERCP was reported to be normal in 13.4% of the younger and 5.0% of the elderly patients. Post-ERCP complications were observed in 4.8% of patients aged less than 70 years in comparison with 2.3% of patients aged over 70 years. The most frequent complication was pancreatitis that was significantly more developed in young than older patients (3.6% versus 1.5%; OR: 8.216, P = 0.015). Conclusion. Diagnostic ERCP is safe and well tolerated in the elderly and even associated with significantly less risk than the younger.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2012 ","pages":"439320"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2012/439320","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/439320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/7/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Background. The present study sought and compared the utility and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the elderly and younger people in a great sample of Iranian population. Methods. Our study involved 780 patients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP at the Taleghani hospital in Tehran between 2010 and 2011; among them, 558 patients were less than 70 years old and others were 70 years old or older. The patients were prospectively identified and data including clinical and biochemical features, ERCP procedures, ERCP diagnosis, and ERCP complications were gathered on them prospectively. Results. Clinical manifestations were comparable in young and older groups except for hepatosplenomegaly and constipation that were more prevalent in the elderly. Laboratory findings were similar in both groups other than mean levels of alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin and albumin levels, which were higher in the elderly group. Selective biliary cannulation was technically more successful in the younger than in others (89.0% versus 81.8%). Common bile duct stone was the most frequent diagnosis in both young and older groups (36.6% and 45.9%, resp.), whereas ERCP was reported to be normal in 13.4% of the younger and 5.0% of the elderly patients. Post-ERCP complications were observed in 4.8% of patients aged less than 70 years in comparison with 2.3% of patients aged over 70 years. The most frequent complication was pancreatitis that was significantly more developed in young than older patients (3.6% versus 1.5%; OR: 8.216, P = 0.015). Conclusion. Diagnostic ERCP is safe and well tolerated in the elderly and even associated with significantly less risk than the younger.

Abstract Image

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
ERCP在老年人中的效用和安全性:伊朗的比较研究。
背景。本研究寻求并比较内镜逆行胆管胰胆管造影(ERCP)在伊朗人口中老年人和年轻人中的效用和安全性。方法。我们的研究涉及2010年至2011年间在德黑兰Taleghani医院接受ERCP诊断和治疗的780名患者;其中年龄小于70岁的558例,年龄在70岁及以上的558例。前瞻性识别患者,收集其临床生化特征、ERCP程序、ERCP诊断及ERCP并发症等资料。结果。除了肝脾肿大和便秘在老年人中更为普遍外,年轻人和老年人的临床表现相似。两组的实验室结果相似,只是碱性磷酸酶、血红蛋白和白蛋白的平均水平在老年组较高。在技术上,选择性胆道插管在年轻人中比其他人更成功(89.0%对81.8%)。总胆管结石是年轻人和老年人中最常见的诊断(分别为36.6%和45.9%),而ERCP在年轻人和老年人中分别为13.4%和5.0%。年龄小于70岁的患者中有4.8%出现ercp后并发症,而年龄大于70岁的患者中有2.3%出现ercp后并发症。最常见的并发症是胰腺炎,年轻患者的发生率明显高于老年患者(3.6%对1.5%;或:8.216,p = 0.015)。结论。诊断性ERCP在老年人中是安全且耐受性良好的,其风险甚至明显低于年轻人。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Retracted: Comparison of Two Entry Methods for Laparoscopic Port Entry: Technical Point of View Endoscopic Ultrasound Elastography for Evaluation of Lymph Nodes: A Single Center Experience. Unsuspected Small-Bowel Crohn's Disease in Elderly Patients Diagnosed by Video Capsule Endoscopy. Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study. Comparison of the Diagnostic Yield of EUS Needles for Liver Biopsy: Ex Vivo Study.
×
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