4.3 Article

Minimal Change Patients Versus Obvious Chronic Pancreatitis A Comparison of Classical Secretin Stimulation Testing Results

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 75-79

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001965

关键词

chronic pancreatitis; minimal change; secretin stimulation testing

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [TL1TR001431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to compare the peak bicarbonate level during secretin stimulation testing among patients with different types of pancreatitis and those without pancreatitis. The study found significant differences in the peak bicarbonate level between different groups, which could be important for diagnosing early-stage pancreatitis.
Objectives: The objective was to assess if the peak bicarbonate level during secretin stimulation testing (SST) differs between patients with minimal change (or small duct) chronic pancreatitis (CP) versus those with obvious CP (or large duct) versus those without CP. Methods: Two hundred nineteen patient records at the University of Florida who had been referred for SST were analyzed for peak bicarbonate, total volume of juice collected, age, sex, and clinical presentation. Results: Fifty-one patients with minimal change CP were identified. Thirty-three patients were felt to have advanced CP, and 135 patients did not have CP by clinical criteria. The peak bicarbonate and total volume of pancreatic juice collected was significantly different (P < 0.001) between all 3 groups by multiple comparison testing. The peak bicarbonate of advanced CP and minimal change groups was less than controls (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) on direct testing between peak bicarbonate in advanced CP and minimal change CP. Conclusions: The peak bicarbonate and volume measured during SST differs among patients with minimal change CP, advanced CP and in disease controls. These results could be useful in diagnosing minimal change/early CP.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据