期刊文献+

高龄患者治疗性ERCP的临床价值及安全性 被引量:4

Clinical value and safety for therapeutic ERCP in elderly patients
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的探讨治疗性内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)对高龄患者的临床价值及安全性。方法同顾性分析787例行治疗性ERCP患者的临床资料,根据年龄分为高龄组(年龄≥70岁)和非高龄组(年龄<70岁),术后严密观察生命体征变化、有无发热、腹痛症状,化验术后2 h血常规、血淀粉酶,对两组患者治疗成功率及并发症发生率进行分析。结果胆管结石非高龄组患者ERCP治疗成功率为95.1%,高龄组患者ERCP治疗成功率为96.4%,两组之间差异无统计学意义;胰腺、胆道或壶腹恶性肿瘤者非高龄组ERCP成功琦率82.1%,高龄组ERCP成功率79.6%,两组之间差异无统计学意义;非高龄组患者ERCP术后并发症发生率为3.8%,高龄组患者并发症发生率为3.6%,两组间差异无统计学意义。结论治疗性ERCP对高龄患者是一种安全、有效的治疗方法。 Objective To investigate the clinical value and safety of therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) in elderly patients.Methods Totally 787 patients with therapeutic ERCP were divided into elderly group(age≥70 years old) and non-elderly group(age<70 years old).Vital signs,fever and abdominal pain were evaluated after ERCP.The levels of serum amylase and blood test were detected in 2 hours after ERCP.The success rates of treatment and incidences of complication in two groups were compared.Results The success rate of treatment in non-elderly group with biliary stones was 95.1%,while the success rate of treatment in elderly group was 96.4%,and no difference was found.The success rate of treatment in non-elderly patients with cancer in pancreas,biliary duct or ampulla was 82.1%,while the success rate of treatment in elderly group was 79.6%,and no difference was found.The difference of the incidences of complication was not significant between the two groups(non-elderly group is 3.8%,elderly group is 3.6%).Conclusion Therapeutic ERCP is safe and effective in elderly patients.
出处 《兰州大学学报(医学版)》 CAS 2013年第4期45-47,共3页 Journal of Lanzhou University(Medical Sciences)
关键词 治疗性内镜逆行胰胆管造影 高龄患者 临床价值 安全性 therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography elderly patient clinical value safety
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献47

  • 1Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, et aI. Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis [ J ]. N Engl J Med, 1992, 326 (24) : 1582-1586.
  • 2Fogel EL, Sherman S, Park SH, et al. Therapeutic biliary endoscopy [J]. Edoscopy, 2003, 35(2): 156-163.
  • 3[1]Ahrendt SA,Nakeeb A,Pitt HA.Cholangiocarcinoma.Clin Liver Dis 2001; 5:191-218
  • 4[2]Patel T.Cholangiocarcinoma.Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 3:33-42
  • 5[3]Guibaud L,Bret PM,Reinhold C,Atri M,Barkun AN.Bile duct obstruction and choledocholithiasis:diagnosis with MR cholangiography.Radiology 1995; 197:109-115
  • 6[4]Rosch T,Meining A,Fruhmorgen S,Zillinger C,Schusdziarra V,Hellerhoff K,Classen M,Helmberger H.A prospective comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of ERCP,MRCP,CT,and EUS in biliary strictures.Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55:870-876
  • 7[5]Park MS,Kim TK,Kim KW,Park SW,Lee JK,Kim JS,Lee JH,Kim KA,Kim AY,Kim PN,Lee MG,Ha HK.Differentiation of extrahepatic bile duct cholangiocarcinoma from benign stricture:findings at MRCP versus ERCP.Radiology 2004; 233:234-240
  • 8[6]Fogel EL,deBellis M,McHenry L,Watkins JL,Chappo J,Cramer H,Schmidt S,Lazzell-Pannell L,Sherman S,Lehman GA.Effectiveness of a new long cytology brush in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction:a prospective study.Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63:71-77
  • 9[7]de Bellis M,Sherman S,Fogel EL,Cramer H,Chappo J,McHenry L Jr,Watkins JL,Lehman GA.Tissue sampling at ERCP in suspected malignant biliary strictures (Part 2).Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56:720-730
  • 10[8]de Bellis M,Fogel EL,Sherman S,Watkins JL,Chappo J,Younger C,Cramer H,Lehman GA.Influence of stricture dilation and repeat brushing on the cancer detection rate of brush cytology in the evaluation of malignant biliary obstruction.Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58:176-182

共引文献198

同被引文献21

引证文献4

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部