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

Table 8 Diet type 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 pancreatitis1	Important	12	2 (17)		4 (33)		2 (17)
	Unimportant	84	10 (12)	0.64	38 (45)	0.44	34 (40)	0.20
Risk other post-ERCP complication1	Important	29	3 (10)		12 (41)		9 (31)
	Unimportant	67	9 (13)	1.00	30 (45)	0.76	27 (40)	0.39
Post-ERCP symptoms1	Important	11	1 (9)		2 (18)		3 (27)
	Unimportant	85	11 (13)	1.00	40 (47)	0.11	33 (39)	0.53
Patient co-morbid medical illnesses2	Important	60	9 (15)		27 (45)		24 (40)
	Unimportant	35	3 (9)	0.53	15 (43)	0.84	12 (34)	0.58
Inpatient/outpatient status3	Important	60	6 (10)		26 (43)		24 (40)
	Unimportant	34	5 (15)	0.52	15 (44)	0.94	12 (35)	0.65

^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;

³Not completed for 3 physicians; ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.