M. Sugimoto, T. Takagi, T. Suzuki, H. Shimizu, G. Shibukawa, Y. Nakajima, Y. Takeda, Y. Noguchi, R. Kobayashi, H. Imamura, H. Asama, N. Konno, Y. Waragai, H. Akatsuka, R. Suzuki, T. Hikichi, H. Ohira
{"title":"内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的新术前预测风险模型:SuPER模型","authors":"M. Sugimoto, T. Takagi, T. Suzuki, H. Shimizu, G. Shibukawa, Y. Nakajima, Y. Takeda, Y. Noguchi, R. Kobayashi, H. Imamura, H. Asama, N. Konno, Y. Waragai, H. Akatsuka, R. Suzuki, T. Hikichi, H. Ohira","doi":"10.1101/2024.08.11.24311807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.\n\nMethods: This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established by logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.\n\nResults: In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: -2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the use of pancreatic duct procedures. The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients ([≤] 0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1 to 3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4 to 7 points). In the validation cohort, the C-statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent from intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8-6.3, P < 0.01).\n\nConclusions: The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.","PeriodicalId":18505,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv","volume":"3 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A new preprocedural predictive risk model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The SuPER model\",\"authors\":\"M. Sugimoto, T. Takagi, T. Suzuki, H. Shimizu, G. Shibukawa, Y. Nakajima, Y. Takeda, Y. Noguchi, R. Kobayashi, H. Imamura, H. Asama, N. Konno, Y. Waragai, H. Akatsuka, R. Suzuki, T. Hikichi, H. Ohira\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.08.11.24311807\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.\\n\\nMethods: This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established by logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.\\n\\nResults: In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: -2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the use of pancreatic duct procedures. The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients ([≤] 0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1 to 3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4 to 7 points). In the validation cohort, the C-statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent from intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8-6.3, P < 0.01).\\n\\nConclusions: The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv\",\"volume\":\"3 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.11.24311807\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.11.24311807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)后胰腺炎(PEP)是ERCP术后严重且致命的不良反应。ERCP术前预测胰腺炎风险的理想方法尚未确定。我们的目标是建立一个简单的 PEP 风险评分模型(SuPER 模型:支持减少 PEP),该模型可在 ERCP 前应用:这项多中心研究共纳入 2074 名接受 ERCP 的患者。方法:这项多中心研究共纳入 2074 名接受 ERCP 的患者,其中 1037 名患者被随机分配到开发组和验证组。在开发组中,通过逻辑回归分析建立了预测 PEP 的风险评分模型。在验证队列中,对模型的性能进行了评估:在开发队列中,提取了ERCP前可确定的五个PEP风险因素,并根据其各自的回归系数赋予权重:胰腺钙化为-2分,女性为1分,导管内乳头状粘液瘤、原生瓦特乳头或使用胰管手术为2分。低危患者([≤] 0 分)的 PEP 发生率为 0%,中危患者(1 至 3 分)为 5.5%,高危患者(4 至 7 分)为 20.2%。在验证队列中,风险评分模型的 C 统计量为 0.71(95% CI 0.64-0.78),可以接受。PEP风险分级(低、中、高)是PEP的重要预测因素,独立于术中PEP风险因素(括约肌切开术前和胰管插管不慎)(OR 4.2,95% CI 2.8-6.3,P < 0.01):无论患者是否接受过胰管手术,PEP 风险评分都能估算出 ERCP 术前发生 PEP 的风险。这个简单的风险模型只有五个项目,有助于预测和解释ERCP术前PEP的风险,并通过选择合适的内镜专家和有用的PEP预防措施来预防PEP。
A new preprocedural predictive risk model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The SuPER model
Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.
Methods: This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established by logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.
Results: In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: -2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the use of pancreatic duct procedures. The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients ([≤] 0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1 to 3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4 to 7 points). In the validation cohort, the C-statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent from intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8-6.3, P < 0.01).
Conclusions: The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.