4.2 Article

Chronic asymptomatic hyperamylasemia unrelated to pancreatic diseases

Journal

ADVANCES IN MEDICAL SCIENCES
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 143-145

Publisher

MEDICAL UNIV BIALYSTOK
DOI: 10.2478/v10039-010-0049-9

Keywords

amylase iso-enzymes; benign pancreatic hyperamylasemia; hyperamylasemia; macroamylasemia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: This study was addressed to assess the clinical characteristics of patients presenting with chronic hyperamylasemia unrelated to pancreatic diseases (CHUPD). Almost all patients presenting with chronic hyperamylasemia undergo expensive, long, difficult, and often unnecessarily repeated diagnostic procedures. This is in conjunction with the poor knowledge of the fact that besides hyperenzymemia secondary to pancreatic diseases and systemic illnesses, various non-pathological forms of chronic hyperamylasemia without relevant pathologic consequence can occur in clinical practice. Material and Methods: Data of all patients with CHUPD were retrospectively reviewed (June 1997-December 2009). Fifty one patients were included in the study; median follow up was 48 months (range 8-112 months). Their pre-enrolment diagnoses were: chronic pancreatitis in 31 cases (60.7%) and recurrent pancreatitis in 13 cases (25.4%); the remaining 7 patients (13.7%) were without a specific diagnosis. Results: Our observations, supported by diagnostic procedures (Ca19-9 serum levels, abdominal ultrasonography, computed tomography and magnetic resonance, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasonography) revealed that CHUPD was secondary to: a) benign pancreatic hyperamylasemia, 20 patients (39.2%); b) macroamylasemia, 18 patients (35.2%) and c) salivary hyperamylasemia, 13 patients (25.4%). Conclusions: Due to the poor familiarity with CHUPD, the occurrence of this condition quite frequently leads to unnecessarily repeated diagnostic procedures.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available