Ge Yu1, Shuang Li, Rong Wan, Xingpeng Wang, Guoyong Hu. 1. From the *Department of Gastroenterology, Shanghai First People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine; and †Department of Cardiology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched until April 18, 2014. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and 2956 patients met the search criteria. When compared with nonnafamostat, the incidence of PEP was reduced to 53% in the patients who received nafamostat (risk ratio [RR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.63). Further analyses were conducted based on the different risk classifications (n = 641 in patients with high risks: RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96 and n = 944 with low risks: RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56), PEP severities (n = 1654: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59 for mild; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96 for moderate; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.13-6.38 for severe), and nafamostat doses (n = 1902: RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.63 for 20 mg; n = 1150: RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63 for 50 mg). However, there was no reduction of the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.68-1.45) or cannulation difficulty (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses from current randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of nafamostat for prophylaxis of PEP.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched until April 18, 2014. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials and 2956 patients met the search criteria. When compared with nonnafamostat, the incidence of PEP was reduced to 53% in the patients who received nafamostat (risk ratio [RR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.63). Further analyses were conducted based on the different risk classifications (n = 641 in patients with high risks: RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96 and n = 944 with low risks: RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56), PEP severities (n = 1654: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59 for mild; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96 for moderate; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.13-6.38 for severe), and nafamostat doses (n = 1902: RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.63 for 20 mg; n = 1150: RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63 for 50 mg). However, there was no reduction of the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.68-1.45) or cannulation difficulty (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses from current randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of nafamostat for prophylaxis of PEP.
Authors: Joo Seong Kim; Sang Hyub Lee; Namyoung Park; Gunn Huh; Jung Won Chun; Jin Ho Choi; In Rae Cho; Woo Hyun Paik; Ji Kon Ryu; Yong-Tae Kim Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Markus Huber-Lang; Kristina N Ekdahl; Rebecca Wiegner; Karin Fromell; Bo Nilsson Journal: Semin Immunopathol Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 9.623
Authors: Hannah Ceuleers; Nikita Hanning; Michelle De Bruyn; Joris G De Man; Heiko U De Schepper; Qian Li; Liansheng Liu; Steven Abrams; Annemieke Smet; Jurgen Joossens; Koen Augustyns; Ingrid De Meester; Pankaj J Pasricha; Benedicte Y De Winter Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 5.988