FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1974889372> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1974889372 abstract "Pancreatic Duct Guidewire Placement for Biliary Cannulation for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP): Cochrane Collaboration Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Frances TSE*, Majidah Bukhari, Yuhong Yuan, Paul Moayyedi, Grigorios I. Leontiadis, Alan N. Barkun Medicine, McMaster University Medical Centre, Hamilton, ON, Canada; Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada Background and Aim: Difficult cannulation is a risk factor for PEP. It has been postulated that the pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) technique may improve biliary cannulation success and reduce the risk of PEP. We conducted a metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PGW technique vs. persistent attempts with conventional cannulation (CC), precut sphincterotomy, or pancreatic duct (PD) stent in patients with difficult cannulation for the prevention of PEP. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL up to October 2012. Conference proceedings from DDW, UEGW and ACG were searched. RCTs that compared PGW technique vs. persistent attempts with CC, precut sphincterotomy or PD stent in patients with difficult cannulation were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two authors. Primary outcome was incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes included CBD cannulation success with the randomized technique, overall CBD cannulation success, bleeding, cholangitis, perforation and mortality. Revman 5.1 was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI, Mandel-Haenszel method; random effects model). Heterogeneity was assessed by Chi test (P 0.15) and I test ( 25%). Results: Six RCTs (503 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Definitions of difficult cannulation were variable. Among the two studies that compared PGW with precut, the incidence of PEP was 21.4% in the PGW group vs. 7.3% in the precut group (RR 2.83; 95% CI 0.96-8.34; I 0%) (Fig 1). Among the three studies that compared PGW with persistent CC (two with contrastand one with guidewire-assisted), the incidence of PEP was 12.9% in the PGW group vs. 8.0% in the CC group (RR 1.63; 95% CI 0.84-3.19; I 0%) (Fig 1). In a post-hoc pooled analysis of the five studies that compared PGW vs. precut or persistent CC, PGW technique significantly increased the risk of PEP compared to precut or persistent CC (RR 1.90; 95% CI 1.08-3.36; I 0%). In the one study that compared PGW vs. PD stent, there was no significant difference in the risk of PEP between the two techniques (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.04-3.30). There was no significant difference in CBD cannulation success with the initial technique the patient was randomized to (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.84 1.24; I 66%) or eventual overall CBD cannulation success (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.90 1.22; I 67%) between PGW technique vs. precut, persistent CC or PD stent. Conclusion: In patients with difficult CBD cannulation, the PGW technique appears to be associated with an increased risk of PEP. PGW is not superior to precut sphincterotomy, persistent attempts with conventional cannulation or PD stent in achieving CBD cannulation. Sole PGW should be discouraged. PD stenting after use of a PGW cannulation technique may reduce the risk of PEP yet requires assessment. Sa1529 Nafamostat for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitisa MetaAnalysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Naga Swetha Samji*, Anupama Inaganti, Rajan Kanth, Sarah D. Komanapalli, Mainor R. Antillon, Praveen K. Roy Internal Medicine, Marshfield clinic, Marshfield, WI; Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oschner Clinic, New Orleans, LA Purpose: Post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication after ERCP and contributes significantly to the morbidity and mortality of the procedure. Nafamostat, a protease inhibitor, inhibits serine proteases such as trysin, kallikrien, C1r and C1s, thrombin, plasmin and thereby decrease the risk of PEP. Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have studied the effectiveness of nafamostat in PEP. We performed a meta-analysis of the RCT’s to evaluate the prophylactic effect of nafamostat in PEP. Methods: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials & Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and recent abstracts from major conference proceedings were searched (through 11/12). All the studies assessing the efficacy of nafamostat in preventing post ERCP pancreatitis are included. Standard forms were used to extract data by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the following outcomes were extractednumber of patients with mild, moderate and severe pancreatitis in nafamostat group vs control group, number of patients with post ERCP hyperamylasemia, incidence of PEP in high risk and low risk patients in nafamostat vs control group. Results: 6 RCT’S (n 2254) met the inclusion criteria. 2 studies used 50mg of nafamostat and 4 studies used 20 mg of intravenous nafamostat. Administration of nafamostat was started 30 min to 1 hour before the procedure and continued for 12-24 hours after the procedure. Two studies compared nafamostat with gabexate and 5 studies compared nafamostat with placebo. Heterogenity was present and thus a random effect model was used for the analysis. Nafamostat decreased the risk of developing PEP ( RR 0.42;95% CI 0.290.62,p 0.0001). The number needed to treat(NNT) was 21 (95% CI 14-40). In subgroup analysis, nafamostat is found to decrease PEP in high risk patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.96, p 0.03),NNT 28. Nafamostat also decreased the risk of PEP in low risk patients (RR 0.28,95% CI 0.15-0.53,p 0.0001),NNT 13. Nafamosat did not lower the risk of Post ERCP hyperamylesemia (RR 1.04,95% CI 0.78-1.39, P 0.7). Mild pancreatitis was significantly lower in nafamostat group compared to placebo group (RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.28-0.69,p 0.001). Moderate pancreatitis was significantly lower in nafamostat group (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.140.95,p 0.03).No sufficient data to assess risk of developing severe pancreatitis. Risk of developing PEP was same in both nafamostat and gabexate group (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.60-1.70,p 0.94). Conclusion: Prophylactic nafamostat decreases the risk of post ERCP pancreatitis in both high risk and low risk groups. Further larger RCT’s are needed to confirm to the above results. Figure 1. Meta-analyses for post-ERCP pancreatitis among trials comparing PGW vs. precut sphincterotomy, PD stent or persistent attempts with conventional cannulation Abstracts" @default.
• W1974889372 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5003596217 @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5025156152 @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5047722549 @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5055359298 @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5056355381 @default.
• W1974889372 creator A5059333025 @default.
• W1974889372 date "2013-05-01" @default.
• W1974889372 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W1974889372 title "Sa1528 Pancreatic Duct Guidewire Placement for Biliary Cannulation for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP): Cochrane Collaboration Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials" @default.
• W1974889372 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.03.579" @default.
• W1974889372 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W1974889372 type Work @default.
• W1974889372 sameAs 1974889372 @default.
• W1974889372 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1974889372 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5003596217 @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5025156152 @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5047722549 @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5055359298 @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5056355381 @default.
• W1974889372 hasAuthorship W1974889372A5059333025 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C168563851 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C191897082 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C2778456384 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C2778527123 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C2779960720 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConcept C95190672 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C126322002 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C141071460 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C168563851 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C191897082 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C192562407 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C2775967933 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C2778456384 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C2778527123 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C2779960720 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C71924100 @default.
• W1974889372 hasConceptScore W1974889372C95190672 @default.
• W1974889372 hasLocation W19748893721 @default.
• W1974889372 hasOpenAccess W1974889372 @default.
• W1974889372 hasPrimaryLocation W19748893721 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W1981026485 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W1997790622 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2003820603 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2004861386 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2043436690 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2128379126 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2132264318 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2156929343 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2509143758 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2548368972 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2566522518 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2566987132 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2604021661 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2807849791 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2809700263 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2890945688 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W2966038383 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W3031479467 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W3108687741 @default.
• W1974889372 hasRelatedWork W3155371726 @default.
• W1974889372 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1974889372 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1974889372 magId "1974889372" @default.
• W1974889372 workType "article" @default.