期刊文献+

Effects of contrast media on the hepato-pancreato-biliary system

Effects of contrast media on the hepato-pancreato-biliary system
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM:To determine the effects of high osmolarity contrast media (HOCM) and iso-osmolar contrast media (CM) application, with or without pressure, on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) system.METHODS: Sixty rats were divided into six equal groups as follows: Group 1: (0.9% NaCl, control), Group 2: (diatrizoate meglumine Na, ionic HOCM, Urographin?), Group 3: (iodixanol, iso-osmolar non-ionic CM, Visipaque?); each of which was applied without pressure, whereas the animals of the remaining three groups (1p, 2p, 3p) were subjected to the same CM with pressure. We performed a duodenal puncture and introduced a catheter into the ampulla. After the catheterization, 0.2 mL CM or 0.9% NaCl was injected with or without pressure. Blood samples were taken for biochemical evaluations. The histopathological examinations of liver, common bile duct, and pancreas were performed.RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the six groups for blood amylase, alanine aminotransferases, aspartate aminotransferases, bilirubin levels (P>0.05). Alkaline phosphatase and γ glutamyl transaminase levels were higher (P < 0.05) in the Urographin? groups (2, 2p) than the Visipaque? groups (3, 3p), or control groups (1, 1p). Hepatocyte necrosis, portal area inflammation, and Kupffer's cell hyperplasia were higher (P<0.05) in the study groups than the control group. However, there were no significant differences (P>0.05) between HOCM (2,2p) and iso-osmolar CM (3,3p) groups. Bile duct proliferation and regeneration in the Urographin groups (2, 2p) were significantly higher (P<0.05) than the Visipaque groups (3, 3p) or the control groups (1,1p). Although CM caused minor damage to the pancreas, there were no statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between the groups. Application of the CM with pressure did not cause additional damage to the HPB system.CONCLUSION: Iso-osmolar, non-ionic CM could be more reliable than the ionic HOCM, whereas the application of pressure during the CM application had no effect on the HPB system. AIM: To determine the effects of high osmolarity contrast media (HOCM) and iso-osmolar contrast media (CM) application, with or without pressure, on hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) system. METHODS: Sixty rats were divided into six equal groups as follows: Group i: (0.9% NaCl, control), Group 2: (diatrizoate meglumine Na, ionic HOCM, Urographin), Group 3: (iodixanol, iso-osmolar nonionic CM, Visipaque); each of which was applied without pressure, whereas the animals of the remaining three groups (1p, 2p, 3p) were subjected to the same CM with pressure. We performed a duodenal puncture and introduced a catheter into the ampulla. After the catheterization, 0.2 mL CM or 0.9% NaCI was injected with or without pressure. Blood samples were taken for biochemical evaluations. The histopathological examinations of liver, common bile duct, and pancreas were performed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the six groups for blood amylase, alanine aminotransferases, aspartate aminotransferases, bilirubin levels (P 〉 0.05). Alkaline phosphatase and γ glutamyl transaminase levels were higher (P 〈 0.05) in the Urographin groups (2, 2p) than the Visipaque groups (3, 3p), or control groups (1, 1p). Hepatocyte necrosis, portal area inflammation, and Kupffer's cell hyperplasia were higher (P 〈 0.05) in the study groups than the control group. However, there were no significant differences (P 〉 0.05) between HOCM (2, 2p) and iso-osmolar CM (3, 3p) groups. Bile duct proliferation and regeneration in the Urographin groups (2, 2p) were significantly higher (P 〈 0.05) than the Visipaque~ groups (3, 3p) or the control groups (1, lp). Although CM caused minor damage to the pancreas, there were no statistically significant differences (P 〉 0.05) between the groups. Application of the CM with pressure did not cause additional damage to the HPB system. CONCLUSION: Iso-osmolar, non-ionic CM could be more reliable than the ionic HOCM, whereas the application of pressure during the CM application had no effect on the HPB system.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2009年第38期4788-4793,共6页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 肠疾病 十二指肠 临床 治疗 CM Contrast media Liver Pancreas Biliarytract Pressure
  • 相关文献

参考文献38

  • 1Sivak MV Jr. EUS for bile duct stones: how does it compare with ERCP? Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56:S175-S177.
  • 2Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, Ren X, Lu NH, Fan ZN, Huang Q, Zhang X, He LP, Sun WS, Zhao Q, Shi RH, Tian ZB, Li YQ, Li W, Zhi FC. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 31-40.
  • 3Salminen P, Laine S, Gullichsen R. Severe and fatal complications after ERCP: analysis of 2555 procedures in a single experienced center. Surg Endosc 2008; 22:1965-1970.
  • 4Trap R, Adamsen S, Hart-Hansen O, Henriksen M. Severe and fatal complications after diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective series of claims to insurance covering public hospitals. Endoscopy 1999; 31:125-130.
  • 5Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, De Berardinis F, De Bemardin M, Ederle A, Fina P, Fratton A. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48:1-10.
  • 6Bilbao MK, Dotter CT, Lee TG, Katon RM. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A study of 10,000 cases. Gastroenterology 1976; 70:314-320.
  • 7Andriulli A, Leandro G, Niro G, Mangia A, Festa V, Gambassi G, Villani MR, Facciorusso D, Conoscitore P, Spirito F, De Maio G. Pharmacologic treatment can prevent pancreatic injury after ERCP: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51:1-7.
  • 8Testoni PA. Why the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis varies considerably? Factors affecting the diagnosis and the incidence of this complication. JOP 2002; 3:195-201.
  • 9Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Johanson JF, Sherman S, Hogan WJ, Cass O. Evaluation of post-ERCP pancreatitis: potential causes noted during controlled study of differing contrast media. Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Study Group. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46:217-222.
  • 10Barkin JS, Casal GL, Reiner DK, Goldberg RI, Phillips RS, Kaplan S. A comparative study of contrast agents for endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol 1991; 86:1437-1441.

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