Caspian Journal of Internal Medicine
Babol University of Medical Sciences
یکشنبه 16 دی 1403
[Archive]
دوره 13، شماره 4 - ( 7-1401 )
جلد 13 شماره 4 صفحات 734-728 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghalehnoei H, Hormati A, Mohammad Alizadeh A H, Ahmadpour S, Abedi S H. Patient-related post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk factors between two groups of patients: Prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin. Caspian J Intern Med 2022; 13 (4) :728-734
URL: http://caspjim.com/article-1-3033-fa.html
URL: http://caspjim.com/article-1-3033-fa.html
Patient-related post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk factors between two groups of patients: Prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin. . 1401; 13 (4) :728-734
چکیده: (1886 مشاهده)
Background: Pancreatitis is one of the most crucial complications following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The purpose of the current study was to investigate patient-related post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk factors in two groups of patients: prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin.
Methods: Two different prophylactic modalities were planned and complications were assessed based on the defined inclusion criteria. In this study, the patients were evaluated for the procedure and patient-related risk factors in post-ERCP pancreatitis in the recipient groups of the prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin.
Results: Pancreatitis was confirmed in 27 of all 170 selected patients after ERCP. By univariate analysis, two variables were significant with the development of PEP. Regarding the patient-related risk factors, unique subjects with common bile duct (CBD) dilated 10mm were more exposed to an increased chance of PEP (P=0. 015); meanwhile, other factors did not correlate with the increased possibility of PEP in both groups. The only procedure-related risk factor for PEP was the deep cannulation of the pancreatic duct in both groups during the procedure with an incremental significant incidence of pancreatitis (P=0.005). Comparison of prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin showed no effects in term of post ERCP pancreatitis reduction. Additionally, there was no significant difference between these two strategies in the rate of PEP.
Conclusion: Prophylactic pancreatic duct stents and administration of rectal indomethacin cannot have particular approaches for reducing the possible occurrence of PEP. The increase in time of deep cannulation and the presence of CBD dilation <10mm could be considered as important risk factors.
Methods: Two different prophylactic modalities were planned and complications were assessed based on the defined inclusion criteria. In this study, the patients were evaluated for the procedure and patient-related risk factors in post-ERCP pancreatitis in the recipient groups of the prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin.
Results: Pancreatitis was confirmed in 27 of all 170 selected patients after ERCP. By univariate analysis, two variables were significant with the development of PEP. Regarding the patient-related risk factors, unique subjects with common bile duct (CBD) dilated 10mm were more exposed to an increased chance of PEP (P=0. 015); meanwhile, other factors did not correlate with the increased possibility of PEP in both groups. The only procedure-related risk factor for PEP was the deep cannulation of the pancreatic duct in both groups during the procedure with an incremental significant incidence of pancreatitis (P=0.005). Comparison of prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin showed no effects in term of post ERCP pancreatitis reduction. Additionally, there was no significant difference between these two strategies in the rate of PEP.
Conclusion: Prophylactic pancreatic duct stents and administration of rectal indomethacin cannot have particular approaches for reducing the possible occurrence of PEP. The increase in time of deep cannulation and the presence of CBD dilation <10mm could be considered as important risk factors.
نوع مطالعه: Original Article |
موضوع مقاله:
Gastroentrology
دریافت: 1400/5/10 | پذیرش: 1400/11/6 | انتشار: 1401/7/6
دریافت: 1400/5/10 | پذیرش: 1400/11/6 | انتشار: 1401/7/6
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
