Literature DB >> 17569133

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography.

Ayman M Abdel Aziz1, Glen A Lehman.   

Abstract

Pancreatitis is the most common complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); the reported incidence of this complication varies from less than 1% to 40%, but a rate of 4%-8% is reported in most prospective studies involving non-selected patients. Differences in criteria for defining pancreatitis, methods of data collection, and patient populations (i.e. number of high-risk patients included in the published series) are factors that are likely to affect the varying rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can range from a minor inconvenience with one or two days of added hospitalization with full recovery to a devastating illness with pancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, permanent disability, and even death. Although, most episodes of PEP are mild (about 90%), a small percentage of patients (about 10%) develop moderate or severe pancreatitis. In the past, PEP was often viewed as an unpredictable and unavoidable complication, with no realistic strategy for its avoidance. New data have aided in stratification of patients into PEP risk categories and new measures have been introduced to decrease the risk of PEP. As most ERCPs are performed on an outpatient basis, the majority of patients will not develop PEP and can be discharged. Alternatively, early detection of those patients who will go on to develop PEP can guide decisions regarding hospital admission and aggressive management. In the last decade, great efforts have been addressed toward prevention of this complication. Points of emphasis have included technical measures, pharmacological prophylaxis, and patient selection. This review provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of published data on PEP and current suggestions for its avoidance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17569133      PMCID: PMC4147113          DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i19.2655

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1007-9327            Impact factor:   5.742


  128 in total

1.  Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation for bile duct stones: A prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial.

Authors:  Naotaka Fujita; Hiroyuki Maguchi; Yutaka Komatsu; Ichiro Yasuda; Osamu Hasebe; Yoshinori Igarashi; Akihiko Murakami; Hidekazu Mukai; Tsuneshi Fujii; Kenji Yamao; Kensei Maeshiro
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ali Fazel; Affan Quadri; Marc F Catalano; Scott M Meyerson; Joseph E Geenen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Reduced risk for pancreatitis after endoscopic microtransducer manometry of the sphincter of Oddi: a randomized comparison with the perfusion manometry technique.

Authors:  T Wehrmann; N Stergiou; T Schmitt; C F Dietrich; H Seifert
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 10.093

4.  Antisecretory vs. antiproteasic drugs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: the evidence-based medicine derived from a meta-analysis study.

Authors:  Angelo Andriulli; Nazario Caruso; Michele Quitadamo; Rosario Forlano; Gioacchino Leandro; Fulvio Spirito; Giovanni De Maio
Journal:  JOP       Date:  2003-01

Review 5.  Mechanical prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic stents: results, techniques, and indications.

Authors:  Paul R Tarnasky
Journal:  JOP       Date:  2003-01

Review 6.  Antisecretory agents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: rationale for use and clinical results.

Authors:  Ronnie Tung-Ping Poon; Sheung Tat Fan
Journal:  JOP       Date:  2003-01

7.  A comparative study of postendoscopic sphincterotomy complications with various types of electrosurgical current in patients with choledocholithiasis.

Authors:  Gerasimos Stefanidis; George Karamanolis; Nikos Viazis; Spiros Sgouros; Efthimia Papadopoulou; Konstantinos Ntatsakis; Apostolos Mantides; Helias Nastos
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Does gabexate mesilate affect serum concentrations of acute phase proteins after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography examination?

Authors:  Raffaele Pezzilli; Armando Gabbrielli; Antonio Maria Morselli Labate; Pasquale D'Alessio; Bahjat Barakat; Guido Costamagna; Francesco Dibenedetti; Margherita Massa; Giovanni Merlini; Gianvico Melzi d'Eril
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2003 May-Jun

9.  Sequential changes in pancreatic markers in acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  M Lempinen; U H Stenman; P Puolakkainen; A Hietaranta; R Haapiainen; E Kemppainen
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 2.423

10.  Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors:  Bill Murray; Ross Carter; Clem Imrie; Susan Evans; Criostoir O'Suilleabhain
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  18 in total

Review 1.  Minimizing complications in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy.

Authors:  Olga Barkay; Mouen Khashab; Mohammad Al-Haddad; Evan L Fogel
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2009-04

Review 2.  Double-balloon endoscopy: past, present, and future.

Authors:  Keijiro Sunada; Hironori Yamamoto
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01-22       Impact factor: 7.527

3.  Can endoscopic palliation of large neoplasm increase the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?

Authors:  Gianfranco Fanello; Fausto Fiocca; Michele Benedetti; Gabriele Martino; Michele Marengo; Roberto Luca Meniconi; Federica Papini; Piero Chirletti
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Authors:  Jin-He Fan; Jun-Bo Qian; Ya-Min Wang; Rui-Hua Shi; Cheng-Jin Zhao
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-06-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Subcapsular hepatic haematoma of the right lobe following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Case report and literature review.

Authors:  Marco Antonio Zappa; Alberto Aiolfi; Ilaria Antonini; Cinzia Domenica Musolino; Andrea Porta
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Subcapsular hepatic haematoma after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an unusual case.

Authors:  Bao-Ying Fei; Cai-Hong Li
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 7.  Can postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis be prevented by a pharmacological approach?

Authors:  Young Koog Cheon
Journal:  Korean J Intern Med       Date:  2013-02-27       Impact factor: 2.884

Review 8.  Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qing-Qing Shi; Xiao-Yi Ning; Ling-Ling Zhan; Guo-Du Tang; Xiao-Ping Lv
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-06-14       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Evaluation of a novel, ultrathin, tip-bending endoscope in a synthetic force-sensing pancreas with comparison to medical guide wires.

Authors:  John E Chandler; Cameron M Lee; Alexander P Babchanik; C David Melville; Michael D Saunders; Eric J Seibel
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2011-12-23

10.  Pancreatic enzyme elevation in chronic myeloid leukemia patients treated with nilotinib after imatinib failure.

Authors:  Francesca Palandri; Fausto Castagnetti; Simona Soverini; Angela Poerio; Gabriele Gugliotta; Simona Luatti; Marilina Amabile; Giovanni Martinelli; Gianantonio Rosti; Michele Baccarani
Journal:  Haematologica       Date:  2009-07-16       Impact factor: 9.941

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.