Cargando…

New practical scoring system to predict post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Development and validation

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most serious adverse event of ERCP. Therefore, it is important to identify high‐risk patients who require prophylactic measures. The aim of this study was to develop a practical prediction model...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fujita, Koichi, Yazumi, Shujiro, Uza, Norimitsu, Kurita, Akira, Asada, Masanori, Kodama, Yuzo, Goto, Masashi, Katayama, Toshiro, Anami, Takahiro, Watanabe, Akihiko, Sugahara, Atsushi, Mukai, Hidekazu, Kawamura, Takashi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8454475/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34584978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgh3.12634
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIM: Post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most serious adverse event of ERCP. Therefore, it is important to identify high‐risk patients who require prophylactic measures. The aim of this study was to develop a practical prediction model for PEP that identifies high‐risk patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent ERCP at three tertiary hospitals between April 2010 and September 2012 were enrolled. The dataset was divided into a training set (two centers) and validation set (one center). Using the training set, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for PEP. We constructed a scoring system and evaluated reproducibility using the validation set. RESULTS: A total of 2719 ERCPs were analyzed. PEP developed in 133 cases (4.9%). Risk factors (adjusted odds ratios [OR]) in the training set were a history of PEP (OR: 4.2), intact papilla (OR: 2.4), difficult cannulation (OR: 1.9), pancreatic guidewire‐assisted biliary cannulation (OR: 2.2), pancreatic injection (OR: 2.1), pancreatic intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS)/sampling from the pancreatic duct (OR: 2.2), and biliary IDUS/sampling from the biliary tract (OR: 2.8). A scoring system was constructed using these seven clinical variables. The areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve of this model were 0.799 in the training set and 0.791 in the validation set. In the high‐risk group at a score of 3 or higher, the incidence of PEP was 13.4%, and all severe/fatal cases were in the high‐risk group. CONCLUSIONS: This scoring system helps to predict each patient's risk and select preventive measures.