期刊文献+

术后3h血清淀粉酶检测对ERCP术后胰腺炎的预测价值 被引量:7

The value of serum amylase test 3-hour after ERCP for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评估ERCP术后3 h血清淀粉酶值对ERCP术后胰腺炎(post-ERCP pancreatitis,PEP)的预测价值。方法收集2011年10月1日至2014年12月1日我院328例连续行ERCP的患者术后3 h和24 h血清淀粉酶值,并统计PEP的发生情况。将是否发生PEP作为状态变量,两个时间点的血清淀粉酶作为检验变量,采用SPSS13.0系统作ROC曲线,分析术后3 h和24 h血清淀粉酶对PEP的预测价值。结果 328例患者中诊断PEP共17例(5.18%)。术后3 h血清淀粉酶值≤200 U/L共194例(59.15%),其中PEP 2例(1.03%);术后3 h血清淀粉酶值>200 U/L共134例(40.85%),其中PEP 15例(11.19%);两者比较有统计学差异(x2=19.731;P<0.001)。术后3 h血清淀粉酶值ROC曲线下面积为0.845,诊断准确度良好,最佳Cut-off值为280 U/L,灵敏度82.4%,特异度74.3%,阳性预测值14.7%,阴性预测值98.7%,准确度74.4%,Youden指数56.4%。术后24 h血清淀粉酶值≤600 U/L共284例(86.59%),其中PEP 1例(0.35%);术后24 h血清淀粉酶值>600 U/L共44例(13.41%),其中PEP 16例(36.36%);两者比较有统计学差异(x2=93.341;P<0.001)。术后24 h血清淀粉酶值ROC曲线下面积为0.977,诊断价值高,最佳Cut-off值为534.5 U/L,灵敏度100%,特异度89.1%,阳性预测值33.3%,阴性预测值100%,准确度89.6%,Youden指数89.1%。结论 ERCP术后3 h血清淀粉酶值对PEP有较好的早期预测价值,特别是有很好的阴性预测价值;当术后3 h血清淀粉酶值>200 U/L并且有胰管插管时,需高度警惕PEP的发生。 Objective To evaluate the value of serum amylase test 3-hour after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) for predicting post-ERCP(PEP) pancreatitis. Methods A study of 328 consecutive ERCPs performed at a single centre was conducted from Oct. 1, 2011 to Dec. 1, 2014. The serum amylase level was measured at 3 h and 24 h after ERCP. The patients with PEP were recorded. The data were statistically analyzed with ROC curve. Results PEP occurred in 17 patients(5.18%). There were 194 patients with the 3 h serum amylase≤200 IU/L, and PEP occurred in 2 patients. 134 patients with the 3 h serum amylase200 IU/L,and PEP occurred in 15 patients. There was statistical difference between two groups(χ2=19.731; P〈0.001). In the ROC curve of 3 h serum amylase, the area under curve was 0.845, the diagnostic accuracy was good and the optimal cut-off value was 280 U/L. The sensitivity of 3 h serum amylase was 82.4%, specificity 74.3%, positive predictive value 14.7%, negative predictive value 98.7%, accuracy 74.4% and Youden index 56.4%. There were284 patients with the 24 h serum amylase≤600 IU/L, and PEP occurred in 1 patient(0.35%). 44 patients with the 24 h serum amylase600 IU/L, and PEP occurred in 16 patients. There was statistical difference between two groups(χ2=93.341, P〈0.001). In the ROC curve of 24 h serum amylase, the area under curve was 0.977, the diagnostic accuracy was excellent and the optimal cut-off value was 534.5 U/L. The sensitivity of 24 h serum amylase was 100%, specificity 89.1%, positive predictive value 33.3%, negative predictive value 100%, accuracy 89.6%and Youden index 89.1%. Conclusion The predictive value of 3 h post-ERCP serum amylase for PEP was good,and the negative predictive value was excellent. When patients have undergone cannula of pancreatic duct and 3h serum amylase level is greater than 200 IU/L, PEP should be concerned.
出处 《肝胆胰外科杂志》 CAS 2016年第5期370-373,377,共5页 Journal of Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery
关键词 经内镜逆行性胰胆管造影术(ERCP) 胰腺炎 血清淀粉酶 endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography(ERCP) pancreatitis serum amylase
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献79

  • 1潘涛,王一平,杨锦林,田玲,李耀东.胰管支架置入术预防内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的系统评价[J].中国循证医学杂志,2004,4(10):693-699. 被引量:12
  • 2韩兵,王宝仁.ERCP术后急性胰腺炎并发症的危险因素及预防研究进展[J].世界华人消化杂志,2006,14(18):1813-1818. 被引量:27
  • 3[1]Masci 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
  • 4[2]Freeman 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.Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54:425-434
  • 5[3]Vandervoort J,Soetikno RM,Tham TC,Wong RC,Ferrari AP Jr,Montes H,Roston AD,Slivka A,Lichtenstein DR,Ruymann FW,Van Dam J,Hughes M,Carr-Locke DL.Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56:652-656
  • 6[4]Cotton PB,Lehman G,Vennes J,Geenen JE,Russell RC,Meyers WC,Liguory C,Nickl N.Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management:an attempt at consensus.Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37:383-393
  • 7[5]Smithline A,Silverman W,Rogers D,Nisi R,Wiersema M,Jamidar P,Hawes R,Lehman G.Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients.Gastrointest Endosc 1993; 39:652-657
  • 8[6]Tarnasky PR,Palesch YY,Cunningham JT,Mauldin PD,Cotton PB,Hawes RH.Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.Gastroenterology 1998; 115:1518-1524
  • 9[7]Fazel A,Quadri A,Catalano MF,Meyerson SM,Geenen JE.Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?A prospective randomized study.Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57:291-294
  • 10[8]Ito K,Fujita N,Noda Y,Kobayashi G,Horaguchi J,Takasawa O,Obana T.The efficacy and safety of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent (Pit-stent) placement in patients at high-risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Dig Endosc 2007; in press

共引文献84

同被引文献52

引证文献7

二级引证文献52

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