Rapid Communication
Copyright ©2006 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 21, 2006; 12(23): 3751-3755
Published online Jun 21, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i23.3751
Table 1 Indications for ERCP in N-acetylcysteine treated group (ACC-group) and control group
ERCP indicationsACC groupControl groupP
Bile duct stones3532NS
Recurrent pancreatitis24NS
Biliary pain, cholestasis35NS
Chronic pancreatitis83NS
Pancreatic cancer31NS
Other46NS
Table 2 ERCP procedure performed
ERCP procedure (patients)ACC groupControl group
Diagnostic42
Therapeutic5149
Endoscopic sphincterotomy4447
Table 3 Risk factors for acute pancreatitis
Risk factors (patients)ACC groupControl groupTotalP
Gender (F/M)33/2233/1866/40NS
Multiple cannulations9716NS
Pancreatic duct injections131225NS
Diagnostic ERCP516NS
Failed procedure235NS
Precut papillotomy12921NS
Small bile duct diameter257NS
Table 4 Unvariate analysis of group differences according to the presence of acute pancreatitis
VariablesAcutepancreatitis(n = 10)No acutepancreatitis(n = 96)P
N-acetylcysteine / Control4/651/54NS
Sex (F/M)9/157/39NS
Precut (Y/N)6/415/810.004
Small bile duct diameter (Y/N)1/96/90NS
Multiple cannulations (Y/N)5/511/850.006
Pancreatic duct injections (Y/N)4/621/75NS
Diagnostic ERCP (Y/N)1/95/91NS
Table 5 Serum and urine amylase activity before ERCP, after 8 and 24 h in control and ACC groups (mean ± SD)
Serum and urine amylaseactivity levelsControl group(%)ACC group(%)P
before ERCP serum62.1 ± 59.779.0 ± 79.4NS
urine272.9 ± 320.5268.1 ± 355.2NS
8 h after ERCP serum324.6 ± 487.1270.1 ± 484.7NS
urine596.3 ± 1108.3775.9 ± 1500.4NS
24 h after ERCP serum268.6 ± 590.9183.56 ± 252.1NS
urine1324.8 ± 2763.91033.7 ± 2499.6NS
Table 6 Summary of the results of forward selection multiple logistic-regression analysis with development of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis as the outcome variable
Variable1Odds ratio95% ClP
Precut (no precut vs precut)0.1080.026-0.4560.003
Sex (F vs M)7.4320.841-65.6890.071