期刊文献+

0.025-inch vs 0.035-inch guide wires for wire-guided cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography:A randomized study 被引量:1

0.025-inch vs 0.035-inch guide wires for wire-guided cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography:A randomized study
下载PDF
导出
摘要 AIM:To compare the clinical outcomes between 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guide wires(GWs) when used in wire-guided cannulation(WGC).METHODS:A single center,randomized study was conducted between April 2011 and March 2013. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at our hospital. Informed,written consent was obtained from each patient prior to study enrollment. Three hundred and twenty-two patients with a na?ve papilla of Vater who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) for the purpose of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC were enrolled in this study. Fifty-three patients were excluded based on the exclusion criteria,and 269 patients were randomly allocated to two groups by a computer and analyzed:the 0.025-inch GW group(n = 109) and the 0.035-inch GW group(n = 160). The primary endpoint was the success rate of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC. Secondary endpoints were the success rates of the pancreatic GW technique and precutting,selective bile duct cannulation time,ERCP procedure time,the rate of pancreatic duct stent placement,the final success rate of selective bile duct cannulation,andthe incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP).RESULTS:The primary success rates of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC were 80.7%(88/109) and 86.3%(138/160) for the 0.025-inch and the 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.226). There were no statistically significant differences in the success rates of selective bile duct cannulation using the pancreatic duct GW technique(46.7% vs 52.4% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.884) or in the success rates of selective bile duct cannulation using precutting(66.7% vs 63.6% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.893). The final success rates for selective bile duct cannulation using these procedures were 92.7%(101/109) and 97.5%(156/160) for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.113). There were no significant differences in selective bile duct cannulation time(median ± interquartile range:3.7 ± 13.9 min vs 4.0 ± 11.2 min for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.851),ERCP procedure time(median ± interquartile range:32 ± 29 min vs 30 ± 25 min for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.184) or in the rate of pancreatic duct stent placement(14.7% vs 15.6% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.832). The incidence of PEP was 2.8%(3/109) and 2.5%(4/160) for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.793).CONCLUSION:The thickness of the GW for WGC does not appear to affect either the success rate of selective bile duct cannulation or the incidence of PEP. AIM:To compare the clinical outcomes between 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guide wires(GWs) when used in wire-guided cannulation(WGC).METHODS:A single center,randomized study was conducted between April 2011 and March 2013. This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at our hospital. Informed,written consent was obtained from each patient prior to study enrollment. Three hundred and twenty-two patients with a na?ve papilla of Vater who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) for the purpose of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC were enrolled in this study. Fifty-three patients were excluded based on the exclusion criteria,and 269 patients were randomly allocated to two groups by a computer and analyzed:the 0.025-inch GW group(n = 109) and the 0.035-inch GW group(n = 160). The primary endpoint was the success rate of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC. Secondary endpoints were the success rates of the pancreatic GW technique and precutting,selective bile duct cannulation time,ERCP procedure time,the rate of pancreatic duct stent placement,the final success rate of selective bile duct cannulation,andthe incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP).RESULTS:The primary success rates of selective bile duct cannulation with WGC were 80.7%(88/109) and 86.3%(138/160) for the 0.025-inch and the 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.226). There were no statistically significant differences in the success rates of selective bile duct cannulation using the pancreatic duct GW technique(46.7% vs 52.4% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.884) or in the success rates of selective bile duct cannulation using precutting(66.7% vs 63.6% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.893). The final success rates for selective bile duct cannulation using these procedures were 92.7%(101/109) and 97.5%(156/160) for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.113). There were no significant differences in selective bile duct cannulation time(median ± interquartile range:3.7 ± 13.9 min vs 4.0 ± 11.2 min for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.851),ERCP procedure time(median ± interquartile range:32 ± 29 min vs 30 ± 25 min for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.184) or in the rate of pancreatic duct stent placement(14.7% vs 15.6% for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively; P = 0.832). The incidence of PEP was 2.8%(3/109) and 2.5%(4/160) for the 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch groups,respectively(P = 0.793).CONCLUSION:The thickness of the GW for WGC does not appear to affect either the success rate of selective bile duct cannulation or the incidence of PEP.
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS 2015年第30期9182-9188,共7页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY Guide WIRE Post-endoscopic retrogradecholangiopancreatography pancreatitis Selective bileduct CANNULATION Wire-guided CANNULATION Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-creatography Guide wire Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis Selective bile duct cannulation Wire-guided cannulation
  • 相关文献

参考文献30

  • 1Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis:a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 845-864#[PMID: 15173799].
  • 2Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, HermanME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ,Lande JD, Pheley AM. Complications of endoscopic biliarysphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909-918 [PMID:8782497 DOI: 10.1056/nejm199609263351301].
  • 3Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M,Minoli G, Crosta C, Comin U, Fertitta A, Prada A, Passoni GR,Testoni PA. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP:a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:417-423 [PMID: 11232684 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03594.x].
  • 4Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG,Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS, Shaw MJ,Snady HW, Erickson RV, Moore JP, Roel JP. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. GastrointestEndosc 2001; 54: 425-434 [PMID: 11577302].
  • 5Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M,Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL, Silverman WB,Dua KS, Aliperti G, Yakshe P, Uzer M, Jones W, Goff J, Lazzell-Pannell L, Rashdan A, Temkit M, Lehman GA. Risk factors forpost-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. AmJ Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 139-147 [PMID: 16405547 DOI:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00380.x].
  • 6Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM, Eusebi LH, Ceroni L, LaterzaL, Fabbri C, Bazzoli F. Can a wire-guided cannulation techniqueincrease bile duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCPpancreatitis-: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. AmJ Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 2343-2350 [PMID: 19532133 DOI:10.1038/ajg.2009.269].
  • 7Halttunen J, Kylp L. A prospective randomized study of thinversus regular-sized guide wire in wire-guided cannulation. SurgEndosc 2013; 27: 1662-1667 [PMID: 23239304 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2653-1].
  • 8Lella F, Bagnolo F, Colombo E, Bonassi U. A simple way ofavoiding post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59:830-834 [PMID: 15173796].
  • 9Artifon EL, Sakai P, Cunha JE, Halwan B, Ishioka S, Kumar A.Guidewire cannulation reduces risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis andfacilitates bile duct cannulation. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102:2147-2153 [PMID: 17581267 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01378.x].
  • 10Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, Walsh PR, Murray MA,Lee EY, Kwan V, Lynch PM. A prospective randomized trial ofcannulation technique in ERCP: effects on technical success andpost-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 296-301 [PMID:18389448 DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-995566].

同被引文献1

引证文献1

二级引证文献5

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