Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Sep 16, 2019; 11(9): 477-485
Published online Sep 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i9.477
Table 1 Participant background
CharacteristicValue median [range] or n (%)
Age, yr71 [6-98]
Sex
Male496 (61.7)
Female308 (38.3)
History of previous pancreatitis
Yes31 (3.9)
No773 (96.1)
History of previous PEP
Yes6 (0.7)
No798 (99.3)
Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction
Yes3 (0.4)
No801 (99.6)
Diagnosis
Benign412 (51.2)
Malignancy392 (48.8)
Indications for ERCP
Diagnostic303 (37.7)
Therapeutic501 (62.3)
Hyperlipasemia before ERCP
Yes202 (25.1)
No602 (74.9)
Hyperamylasemia before ERCP
Yes97 (12.1)
No707 (87.9)
Table 2 Incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and elevated serum pancreatic enzyme levels in the early and late stages after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, n (%)
Early stage after ERCP1Late stage after ERCP2
PEP
Yes40 (5.0)38 (4.7)
No764 (95.0)766 (95.3)
Hyperlipasemia3
Yes236 (29.4)239 (29.7)
No568 (70.6)565 (70.3)
Hyperamylasemia3
Yes104 (12.9)138 (17.2)
No700 (87.1)666 (82.8)
Table 3 Incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis among participants1, n (%)
Value
PEP78 (9.7)
Mild72 (9.0)
Moderate5 (0.6)
Severe1 (0.1)
Table 4 The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves and optimal cutoff values for s-Lipase and s-Amylase based on the presence/absence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in the early stage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
s-Lips-AmyP-value1
AUC (95%CI)0.908 (0.880-0.940)0.880 (0.846-0.915)0.023
Optimal cutoff value (U/L)342171
Sensitivity0.8590.859
Specificity0.8670.763
Positive predictive value0.4050.277
Negative predictive value0.9810.979