Dietary approaches following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A survey of selected endoscopists

Table 9 Timing of resume diet recommended based on clinical factors considered important or not by the respondents

Clinical factors			Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis
			High vs medium		High vs low		Medium vs low
		Total number of pairs	Number with different recommendationsb		Number with different recommendationsb		Number with different recommendationsb
			n (%)	P-valuea	n (%)	P-valuea	n (%)	P-valuea
Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis2	Important	14	1 (7)		1 (7)		0 (0)
	Unimportant	81	16 (20)	0.45	19(23)	0.29	7 (9)	0.59
Risk other post-ERCP complication1	Important	26	4 (15)		4 (15)		2 (8)
	Unimportant	70	13 (19)	1.00	16 (23)	0.42	5 (7)	1.00
Post-ERCP symptoms1	Important	12	1 (8)		0 (0)		1 (8)
	Unimportant	84	16 (19)	0.69	20 (24)	0.07	6 (7)	1.00
Patient co-morbid medical illnesses1	Important	65	11 (17)		12 (18)		5 (8)
	Unimportant	31	6 (19)	0.77	8 (26)	0.41	2 (6)	1.00
Inpatient/outpatient status2	Important	65	8 (12)		11 (17)		5 (8)
	Unimportant	30	9 (30)	0.04	9 (30)	0.15	2 (7)	1.00

^aSignificance of the association between physician importance answers and recommendation of different diets assessed using a Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate.

^bRecommended diet dichotomized as NPO/Clears vs Low-Fat/Normal to define “Different Recommendation” importance dichotomized as: Very/Somewhat Important →“Important vs Neither/Somewhat/Very Unimportant →“Unimportant”;

¹Not completed for 1 physician;

²Not completed for physicians; ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.