4.7 Article

Pain at 24 hours associated with amylase levels greater than 5 times the upper normal limit as the most reliable indicator of post-ERCP pancreatitis

期刊

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
卷 53, 期 1, 页码 33-39

出版社

MOSBY, INC
DOI: 10.1067/mge.2001.111390

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The frequency of post-ERCP/sphincterotomy pancreatitis is between 1.3% and 7.6% in prospective studies. This range likely reflects differences in definitions of pancreatitis and methods of data collection. Methods: To identify clinical findings and enzymatic values consistent for clinical pancreatitis at 24 hours, the post-ERCP/sphincterotomy course of 1185 procedures was prospectively recorded. Patients were evaluated for pancreatic-type pain, white blood cell count, and serum amylase before and 24 hours after the procedure; pain and amylase levels were also recorded 6 to 8 hours after the procedure. CT was performed in all patients with pain associated with amylase levels greater than 3 times normal. All patients were evaluated clinically at 48 hours. Results: Pancreatic-type pain never occurred in cases with amylase levels lower than 3 times normal; it was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with amylase levels greater than 5 times normal, either 6 to 8 hours or 24 hours after the procedure. Leukocytosis and CT findings consistent with pancreatitis were observed only in patients (41.7% and 29.5%, respectively) with 24-hour amylase levels greater than 5 times normal, None of the 18 patients with pain at 24 hours and serum amylase lower than 5 times normal had symptoms that persisted at 48 hours, Twenty-five (41.7%) of the 60 patients with pain at 24 hours and amylase higher than 5 times normal had 48-hour pain at 48 hours and hyperamylasemia. Conclusions: Features consistent with clinical pancreatitis were present only among patients with pancreatic-type pain at 24 hours and amylase levels higher than 5 times normal. Additional follow-up is required for these patients.

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

4.7
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