Yu Zhang1,2, Xiaoling Ye1,2, Xinyue Wan1,2, Tao Deng3,4. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China. 2. Hubei Key Laboratory of Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China. dengtao1964@163.com. 4. Hubei Key Laboratory of Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430060, Hubei Province, China. dengtao1964@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lipase is one of the diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis; however, the value of serum lipase in the early prediction and diagnosis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis remains controversial. AIMS: We evaluate the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities for early prediction of postoperative pancreatitis (PEP) and compare the 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities in the diagnosis of PEP. METHODS: Clinical information of patients who underwent ERCP from January 2017 to December 2018 at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for 3-h and 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities to evaluate predictive and diagnostic values, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 498 cases with ERCP were finally enrolled, in which 36 cases of PEP were confirmed. ROC curves for 3-h post-ERCP amylase and lipase activities depicted areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.88 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.82-0.93) and 0.90 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), respectively. The difference showed no significance using Z test (Z = 0.69, P > 0.05). AUCs for 24-h amylase and lipase activities were 0.83 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.77-0.89) and 0.94 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.90-0.99), respectively, and the difference was significant (Z = 3.04, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For early prediction of PEP, 3-h post-ERCP serum lipase activity is at least as good as that of amylase. For diagnosis of PEP, 24-h post-ERCP serum lipase is a much better indicator than that of amylase. Together, this study suggests that serum lipase should be given priority in the early prediction and diagnosis of PEP.
BACKGROUND: Lipase is one of the diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis; however, the value of serum lipase in the early prediction and diagnosis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis remains controversial. AIMS: We evaluate the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities for early prediction of postoperative pancreatitis (PEP) and compare the 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities in the diagnosis of PEP. METHODS: Clinical information of patients who underwent ERCP from January 2017 to December 2018 at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for 3-h and 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities to evaluate predictive and diagnostic values, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 498 cases with ERCP were finally enrolled, in which 36 cases of PEP were confirmed. ROC curves for 3-h post-ERCP amylase and lipase activities depicted areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.88 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.82-0.93) and 0.90 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), respectively. The difference showed no significance using Z test (Z = 0.69, P > 0.05). AUCs for 24-h amylase and lipase activities were 0.83 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.77-0.89) and 0.94 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.90-0.99), respectively, and the difference was significant (Z = 3.04, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: For early prediction of PEP, 3-h post-ERCP serum lipase activity is at least as good as that of amylase. For diagnosis of PEP, 24-h post-ERCP serum lipase is a much better indicator than that of amylase. Together, this study suggests that serum lipase should be given priority in the early prediction and diagnosis of PEP.
Authors: Ayesha Kamal; Venkata S Akshintala; Rupjyoti Talukdar; Mahesh K Goenka; Rakesh Kochhar; Sundeep Lakhtakia; Mohan K Ramchandani; Saroj Sinha; Rajesh Goud; Vijay K Rai; Manu Tandan; Rajesh Gupta; B Joseph Elmunzer; Saowonee Ngamruengphong; Vivek Kumbhari; Mouen A Khashab; Anthony N Kalloo; D Nageshwar Reddy; Vikesh K Singh Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ali Akbar; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Todd H Baron; Zhen Wang; Osama Altayar; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Peter A Banks; Thomas L Bollen; Christos Dervenis; Hein G Gooszen; Colin D Johnson; Michael G Sarr; Gregory G Tsiotos; Santhi Swaroop Vege Journal: Gut Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Hemant Goyal; Sonali Sachdeva; Syed Ali Amir Sherazi; Shweta Gupta; Abhilash Perisetti; Aman Ali; Saurabh Chandan; Benjamin Tharian; Neil Sharma; Nirav Thosani Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2022-07-15