Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 16, 2016; 8(20): 777-784
Published online Dec 16, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i20.777
Table 1 Patient characteristics
Patientsn
Male, %846, 60%
Age, median (range)73 (12-99)
Native papilla668, 47.6%
Indication
Malignancy522
Choledocholithiasis771
Others110
Cannulation time, median (range)5 min (1-185)
Procedure time, median37 min (3-185)
2 h amylase97 IU/mL (10-3502)
median (range)
ERCP and related procedures
Total ERCP1403
ENBD362
EBS380
EMS42
EPS124
Precut35
EST505
EPBD20
EPLBD38
Pancreatic duct brush15
Table 2 Complications
Complicationsn, % (95%CI)
Bleeding8, 0.57 (0.28-1.12)
Perforation5, 0.35 (0.15-0.83)
Pancreatitis (severe pancreatitis)55, 3.9 (3.02-5.07) [3, 0.2 (0.073-0.64)]
Procedure-related death0, 0
Table 3 Univariate analysis of pancreatitis predictors
PredictorsOdds ratio95%CIP value
Sex (female)0.530.31-0.920.0245
Native papilla5.622.73-11.6< 0.0001
ENBD0.770.43-1.380.4313
EBS12.621.18-5.850.0129
EMS0.370.13-1.080.0784
EPS0.470.22-1.000.0528
Precut0.230.08-0.610.0102
EST0.490.28-0.840.0099
EPBD0.220.06-0.780.0405
EPLBD--0.3983
Pancreatic duct brush6.421.75-23.50.0186
2-h amylase ≥ 2 times ULN36.617.6-76.3< 0.0001
Cannulation time ≥ 13 min5.823.33-10.2< 0.0001
Procedure time ≥ 54 min4.702.70-8.18< 0.0001
Table 4 Age-adjusted multivariate analysis of pancreatitis predictors
PredictorsOdds ratio95%CIP value
Sex (female)1.460.77-2.750.2431
Native papilla1.780.75-4.480.1908
Endoscopic biliary stent0.610.23-1.450.2810
Precut1.710.43-6.000.4288
EST1.180.60-2.350.6278
EPBD1.940.34-8.910.4296
Pancreatic duct brush3.150.54-15.50.1870
2 h amylase ≥ 2 times ULN25.412.2-59.9< 0.0001
Cannulation time ≥ 13 min2.631.34-5.230.0051
Procedure time ≥ 54 min1.230.389-3.670.7183
Table 5 Previous reports of hourly variations in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography amylase levels
Ref.YearnTime1(h)Amylasecut offSensitivitySpecificityPPVNPVDefinition of PEP
LaFerla et al[23]1986202800n.d.n.d.n.d.UnlikelyAmy > 1200
Gottlieb et al[24]1996231227682761598Consensus criteria
Testoni et al[25]199940925 ×23.198.246.294.9Amy > 5 × ULN
45 ×53.89542.496.8
85 ×76.996.962.598.4
Testoni et al[26]200111856-83 ×n.d.n.d.n.d.100Pancreatic type pain
Thomas et al[27]200126342 ×9092.924.399.6Consensus criteria
43 ×7095.336.898.8
Kapetanos et al[28]20079723 ×72793295Consensus criteria
63 ×82753097
Ito et al[16]2007129133 ×77n.d.29n.d.Amy > 1 × ULN,
63 ×85n.d.24n.d.with pain at 24 h
Nishino et al[29]2009163143 ×89.872.912.799.4Consensus criteria
44 ×84.780.41699.2
Artifon et al[30]201030041.5 ×77632694Consensus criteria
Sutton et al[15]201195942.5 ×28080.411.199.2Consensus criteria
42.5 ×310091.84.3100(mod/severe only)
Our study2015140322 ×85.585.819.899.3Consensus criteria
22 ×496.468.811.299.8

  • Citation: Hayashi S, Nishida T, Shimakoshi H, Shimoda A, Amano T, Sugimoto A, Takahashi K, Mukai K, Matsubara T, Yamamoto M, Nakajima S, Fukui K, Inada M. Combination of two-hour post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography amylase levels and cannulation times is useful for predicting post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8(20): 777-784
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v8/i20/777.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v8.i20.777