选择性胆道插管的双导管技术不会增加天真乳头患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的发生率。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-26 DOI:10.5946/ce.2023.128
Han Taek Jeong, June Hwa Bae, Ho Gak Kim, Jimin Han
{"title":"选择性胆道插管的双导管技术不会增加天真乳头患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的发生率。","authors":"Han Taek Jeong, June Hwa Bae, Ho Gak Kim, Jimin Han","doi":"10.5946/ce.2023.128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety of the double-guidewire technique (DGT) with that of the conventional single-guidewire technique (SGT) in real-world situations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 240 patients with naïve papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2021 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the SGT and DGT groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 163 patients (67.9%) belonged to the SGT group, and 77 (32.1%) belonged to the DGT group. The rates of successful biliary cannulation were 95.7% and 83.1% in the SGT and DGT groups, respectively (p=0.002). In the study group, PEP occurred in 14 patients (5.8%). The PEP rates were not significantly different between the SGT and DGT groups (4.3% vs. 9.1%, p=0.150). In the multivariate analysis, the age of <50 years (odds ratio [OR], 9.305; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.367-63.358; p=0.023) and hyperlipidemia (OR, 7.384; 95% CI, 1.103-49.424; p=0.039) were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DGT did not increase the PEP rate in patients with naïve papilla. In addition, the age of <50 years and hyperlipidemia were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"226-236"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10984747/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double-guidewire technique for selective biliary cannulation does not increase the rate of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with naïve papilla.\",\"authors\":\"Han Taek Jeong, June Hwa Bae, Ho Gak Kim, Jimin Han\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2023.128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>This study aimed to compare the safety of the double-guidewire technique (DGT) with that of the conventional single-guidewire technique (SGT) in real-world situations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 240 patients with naïve papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2021 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the SGT and DGT groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 163 patients (67.9%) belonged to the SGT group, and 77 (32.1%) belonged to the DGT group. The rates of successful biliary cannulation were 95.7% and 83.1% in the SGT and DGT groups, respectively (p=0.002). In the study group, PEP occurred in 14 patients (5.8%). The PEP rates were not significantly different between the SGT and DGT groups (4.3% vs. 9.1%, p=0.150). In the multivariate analysis, the age of <50 years (odds ratio [OR], 9.305; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.367-63.358; p=0.023) and hyperlipidemia (OR, 7.384; 95% CI, 1.103-49.424; p=0.039) were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>DGT did not increase the PEP rate in patients with naïve papilla. In addition, the age of <50 years and hyperlipidemia were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"226-236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10984747/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.128\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.128","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:本研究旨在比较双导丝技术(DGT)与传统单导丝技术(SGT)在实际情况下的安全性:本研究旨在比较双导丝技术(DGT)和传统单导丝技术(SGT)在实际情况下的安全性:方法:共纳入了 2021 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月期间在大邱天主教大学医疗中心接受内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)的 240 例天生乳头患者。主要结果是SGT组和DGT组ERCP术后胰腺炎(PEP)的发生率:共有 163 名患者(67.9%)属于 SGT 组,77 名患者(32.1%)属于 DGT 组。SGT组和DGT组的胆道插管成功率分别为95.7%和83.1%(P=0.002)。研究组中有 14 名患者(5.8%)发生了 PEP。SGT组和DGT组的PEP率无明显差异(4.3% vs. 9.1%,P=0.150)。在多变量分析中,得出结论的年龄:DGT 并未增加幼稚乳头状瘤患者的 PEP 率。此外,DGT 组患者的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Double-guidewire technique for selective biliary cannulation does not increase the rate of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with naïve papilla.

Background/aims: This study aimed to compare the safety of the double-guidewire technique (DGT) with that of the conventional single-guidewire technique (SGT) in real-world situations.

Methods: A total of 240 patients with naïve papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center between January 2021 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the SGT and DGT groups.

Results: A total of 163 patients (67.9%) belonged to the SGT group, and 77 (32.1%) belonged to the DGT group. The rates of successful biliary cannulation were 95.7% and 83.1% in the SGT and DGT groups, respectively (p=0.002). In the study group, PEP occurred in 14 patients (5.8%). The PEP rates were not significantly different between the SGT and DGT groups (4.3% vs. 9.1%, p=0.150). In the multivariate analysis, the age of <50 years (odds ratio [OR], 9.305; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.367-63.358; p=0.023) and hyperlipidemia (OR, 7.384; 95% CI, 1.103-49.424; p=0.039) were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.

Conclusion: DGT did not increase the PEP rate in patients with naïve papilla. In addition, the age of <50 years and hyperlipidemia were significant risk factors for PEP in the DGT group.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic vacuum therapy for gastrointestinal transmural defects: a literature review. Effectiveness of a novel ex vivo training model for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection training: a prospective observational study conducted at a single center in Japan. Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore. Technical challenges and safety of prophylactic gallbladder stenting with metallic biliary stenting. The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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