胰管支架对胆总管插管困难患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后胰腺炎的影响
DOI: 10.12449/JCH250924
Influence of pancreatic stent on pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with difficult common bile duct intubation
-
摘要:
目的 通过观察术中置入胰管支架的胆总管插管困难患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)术后胰腺炎(PEP)发生率,了解胰管支架置入对PEP的防治效果,为临床治疗提供依据。 方法 回顾性分析2016年1月—2024年12月在郑州大学第一附属医院初次接受ERCP且术中胆总管插管困难的186例胆道疾病患者临床资料,根据胰管支架置入情况分为5Fr-5 cm支架组(n=67)、7Fr-5 cm支架组(n=46)以及未置入胰管支架的对照组(n=73)。比较3组患者基线资料、术中操作方式、术后情况。正态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用单因素方差分析,进一步两两比较采用LSD-t法;非正态分布的计量资料多组间比较采用Kruskal-Wallis H秩和检验,进一步两两比较采用Dunn法。计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验或Fisher精确概率法。采用Logistic回归分析困难插管患者PEP的影响因素。 结果 患者总PEP发生率为12.37%(23/186)。对照组PEP发生率、术后腹痛评分和术后住院时间均高于5Fr-5 cm支架组和7Fr-5 cm支架组(P值均<0.01),且对照组PEP以中-重型为主(55.56%)。单因素Logistic回归分析显示,憩室内乳头、双导丝插管、针刀预切开、胆总管网篮联合球囊取石、术中组织活检、置入胰管支架、插管时间≤10 min、插管次数≤5次、术前CRP≤5 mg/L是PEP的影响因素(P值均<0.05);多因素Logistic回归分析显示,术中胰管置入支架、针刀预切开和术中组织活检是PEP发生的独立影响因素(P值均<0.05)。 结论 ERCP术中置入胰管支架可有效降低困难插管患者PEP的发生风险,针刀预切开和术中组织活检会增加困难插管患者PEP的发生风险。 -
关键词:
- 支架 /
- 胰胆管造影术, 内窥镜逆行 /
- 胰腺炎
Abstract:Objective To investigate the incidence rate of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with difficult common bile duct intubation undergoing pancreatic duct stenting during surgery, as well as the effect of pancreatic duct stenting in the prevention and treatment of PEP, and to provide a basis for clinical treatment. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 186 patients with biliary tract disease who underwent initial ERCP and had difficult common bile duct intubation in The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2016 to December 2024, and according to the condition of pancreatic duct stenting, the patients were divided into control group with 73 patients (without pancreatic duct stenting), 5Fr-5 cm stent group with 67 patients, and 7Fr-5 cm stent group with 46 patients. The three groups were compared in terms of baseline data, intraoperative procedures, and postoperative outcomes. A one-way analysis of variance was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between multiple groups, and the least significant difference t-test was used for further comparison between two groups; the Kruskal-Wallis H rank sum test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data between multiple groups, and the Dunn method was used for further comparison between two groups; the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups. The Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for PEP in patients with difficult intubation during ERCP. Results The overall incidence rate of PEP was 12.37% (23/186). Compared with the 5Fr-5 cm stent group and the 7Fr-5 cm stent group, the control group had a significantly higher incidence rate of PEP, a significantly higher score of postoperative abdominal pain, and a significantly longer length of postoperative hospital stay (all P<0.01), and 55.56% of the patients in the control group had moderate-to-severe PEP. The univariate Logistic regression analysis showed that intradiverticular papilla, double guide wire intubation, needle knife precut, the application of basket and balloon for removal of common bile duct stones, intraoperative biopsy, pancreatic duct stenting, intubation time≤10 minutes, frequency of intubation≤5 times, preoperative CRP≤5 mg/L were influencing factors for PEP (all P<0.05), and the multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that intraoperative pancreatic duct stenting, needle knife precut, and intraoperative biopsy were independent influencing factors for the onset of PEP (all P<0.05). Conclusion Pancreatic duct stenting during ERCP can effectively reduce the risk of PEP in patients with difficult intubation, while needle knife precut and intraoperative biopsy can increase the risk of PEP in patients with difficult intubation. -
Key words:
- Stents /
- Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde /
- Pancreatitis
-
表 1 ERCP困难插管患者基线资料比较
Table 1. Comparison of baseline information of patients with difficult intubation in ERCP
项目 对照组(n=73) 5Fr-5 cm支架组(n=67) 7Fr-5 cm支架组(n=46) 统计值 P值 男[例(%)] 47(64.38) 33(49.25) 26(56.52) χ2=3.27 0.20 年龄(岁) 65.58±15.06 64.42±15.91 64.37±14.21 F=0.13 0.88 术前诊断[例(%)] χ2=2.70 0.26 胆管结石 63(86.30) 60(89.55) 44(95.65) 胆管狭窄/占位 10(13.70) 7(10.45) 2(4.35) 合并症[例(%)] χ2=7.42 0.28 无明显合并症 37(50.68) 36(53.73) 20(43.49) 高血压 23(31.51) 21(31.34) 21(45.65) 糖尿病 10(13.70) 4(5.97) 4(8.70) 冠心病 3(4.11) 6(8.96) 1(2.17) 血液检查 术前CRP(mg/L) 12.97±1.51 16.05±2.56 15.86±2.45 F=0.69 0.50 术前ALT(U/L) 46(29~88) 48(31~99) 55(31~69) H=0.08 0.96 术前TBil(μmol/L) 34.0(16.5~57.0) 34.0(16.0~53.0) 35.0(22.0~54.0) H=0.67 0.72 表 2 ERCP困难插管患者术中情况比较
Table 2. Comparison of intraoperative conditions in patients with difficult intubation in ERCP
项目 对照组(n=73) 5Fr-5 cm支架组
(n=67)7Fr-5 cm支架组
(n=46)χ2值 P值 十二指肠乳头特征[例(%)] 10.58 0.23 半球形乳头 10(13.70) 8(11.94) 13(28.26) 小乳头 14(19.18) 16(23.88) 8(17.39) 冗长乳头 10(13.70) 14(20.90) 5(10.87) 憩室旁乳头 21(28.77) 19(28.36) 9(19.57) 憩室内乳头 18(24.66) 10(14.93) 11(23.91) 导丝引导插管[例(%)] 0.68 0.71 单导丝引导插管 63(86.30) 59(88.06) 38(82.61) 双导丝引导插管 10(13.70) 8(11.94) 8(17.39) 插管时间1)[例(%)] 2.30 0.32 ≤10 min 25(34.25) 18(26.87) 10(21.74) >10 min 48(65.75) 49(73.13) 36(78.26) 插管次数1)[例(%)] 1.68 0.43 ≤5次 66(90.41) 57(85.07) 38(82.61) >5次 7(9.59) 10(14.93) 8(17.39) 乳头预切开方式[例(%)] 4.91 0.30 经胆管预切开 56(76.71) 48(71.64) 30(65.22) 经胰管预切开 8(10.96) 13(19.40) 12(26.09) 针刀预切开 9(12.33) 6(8.96) 4(8.70) 胆总管取石[例(%)] 3.61 0.46 球囊取石 21(28.77) 19(28.36) 17(36.96) 球囊联合网篮取石 42(57.53) 41(61.19) 27(58.70) 未取石 10(13.70) 7(10.45) 2(4.35) 胆道支架置入类型[例(%)] 1.51 0.83 内镜鼻胆管引流 46(63.01) 38(56.72) 26(56.52) “圣诞树”塑料支架 22(30.14) 24(35.82) 18(39.14) 胆道金属支架 5(6.85) 5(7.46) 2(4.34) 活检情况[例(%)] 1.67 0.80 胆道活检 9(12.33) 6(8.96) 5(10.87) 乳头活检/切除 1(1.37) 3(4.48) 1(2.17) 未取活检 63(86.30) 58(86.57) 40(86.96) 注:1)插管时间和插管次数分组规则参考文献[7]。
表 3 ERCP困难插管患者术后并发症及住院情况比较
Table 3. Comparison of postoperative complications and hospitalization conditions in patients with difficult intubation in ERCP
项目 对照组(n=73) 5Fr-5 cm支架组
(n=67)7Fr-5 cm支架组
(n=46)统计值 P值 PEP[例(%)] 18(24.66) 4(5.97)1) 1(2.17)1) χ2=17.12 <0.01 PEP程度分级[例(%)] χ2=6.76 0.03 轻型 8(44.44) 4(100.00) 1(100.00) 中-重型 10(55.56) 0(0.00) 0(0.00) 腹痛评分(分) 1.64±0.98 1.10±0.531) 1.04±0.671) F=12.16 <0.01 消化道出血[例(%)] 6(8.22) 3(4.48) 3(6.52) χ2=0.83 0.66 消化道穿孔[例(%)] 2(2.74) 1(1.49) 2(4.35) χ2=0.85 0.67 术后住院时间(d)[例(%)] 2.48±1.59 1.69±0.841) 1.54±0.861) F=11.41 <0.01 2周内支架自行脱落[例(%)] 51(76.12) 8(17.39) χ2=37.70 <0.01 注:与对照组比较,1)P<0.01。
表 4 影响ERCP困难插管患者PEP的单因素Logistic分析
Table 4. Univariate Logistic analysis of PEP in patients with difficult intubation in ERCP
项目 β值 SE Wald χ2 P值 OR(95%CI) 男性 0.18 0.46 0.16 0.69 1.20(0.49~2.93) 年龄<60岁 -0.07 0.45 0.03 0.87 0.93(0.39~2.23) 胰管置入支架情况 未置入支架 12.96 <0.01 1.00 置入5Fr-5 cm支架 -1.64 0.58 7.92 <0.01 0.19(0.04~0.89) 置入7Fr-5 cm支架 -2.69 1.05 6.60 0.01 0.07(0.01~0.53) 憩室内乳头 1.56 0.61 6.51 0.01 4.75(1.44~15.74) 插管时间≤10 min -2.16 1.04 4.33 0.04 0.12(0.02~0.88) 插管次数≤5次 -2.70 0.77 12.21 <0.01 0.07(0.02~0.31) 双导丝插管 1.03 0.49 4.50 0.03 2.81(1.08~7.30) 经胆管预切开 -0.94 0.49 3.80 0.06 0.39(0.15~1.07) 经胰管预切开 0.20 0.59 0.11 0.74 1.22(0.38~3.90) 经针刀预切开 2.12 0.75 8.08 <0.01 8.37(1.93~36.23) 网篮联合球囊取石 1.51 0.64 5.59 0.02 4.54(1.29~15.88) 组织活检 2.35 0.49 23.34 <0.01 10.52(4.05~27.32) 合并糖尿病 0.89 0.62 2.04 0.15 2.43(0.72~8.21) 术前CRP≤5 mg/L -1.34 0.53 6.43 0.01 0.26(0.09~0.74) 术前ALT<40 U/L -0.95 0.53 3.19 0.07 0.39(0.14~1.10) 术前TBil<17.1 μmol/L -0.77 0.65 1.44 0.23 0.46(0.13~1.63) 2周内胰管支架脱落 1.59 1.11 2.05 0.15 4.91(0.56~43.42) 表 5 影响ERCP困难插管患者PEP发生的多因素Logistic分析
Table 5. Multivariate Logistic analysis of PEP in patients with difficult intubation in ERCP
项目 β值 SE Wald χ2 P值 OR(95%CI) 胰管置入支架情况 未置支架 15.11 <0.01 1.00 置入5Fr-5 cm支架 -3.24 1.19 7.38 <0.01 0.04(0.00~0.77) 置入7Fr-5 cm支架 -6.24 1.63 14.57 <0.01 0.00(0.00~0.05) 针刀预切开 2.71 1.33 4.16 0.04 15.01(1.11~202.96) 组织活检 4.15 1.12 13.68 <0.01 63.27(7.03~569.61) -
[1] KUNDUMADAM S, FOGEL EL, GROMSKI MA. Gallstone pancreatitis: General clinical approach and the role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography[J]. Korean J Intern Med, 2021, 36( 1): 25- 31. DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2020.537. [2] Chinese Digestive Endoscopist Committee, Chinese Endoscopist Association, Physicians’Association Chinese; Pancreatic Disease Committee, Physicians’Association Chinese. Expert consensus on perioperative medication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2018, 34( 12): 2555- 2562. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.12.010.中国医师协会内镜医师分会消化内镜专业委员会, 中国医师协会胰腺病专业委员会. 经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术围手术期用药专家共识意见[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2018, 34( 12): 2555- 2562. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.12.010. [3] MORALES SJ, SAMPATH K, GARDNER TB. A review of prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Gastroenterol Hepatol(N Y), 2018, 14( 5): 286- 292. [4] YASUDA I, ISAYAMA H, BHATIA V. Current situation of endoscopic biliary cannulation and salvage techniques for difficult cases: Current strategies in Japan[J]. Dig Endosc, 2016, 28( Suppl 1): 62- 69. DOI: 10.1111/den.12591. [5] TESTONI PA, MARIANI A, AABAKKEN L, et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy(ESGE) clinical guideline[J]. Endoscopy, 2016, 48( 7): 657- 683. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108641. [6] COTTON PB, LEHMAN G, VENNES J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: An attempt at consensus[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 1991, 37( 3): 383- 393. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(91)70740-2. [7] ZHANG Y, REN G, SHI X, et al. Risk factors for moderate to severe pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography[J]. Chin J Dig Endosc, 2022, 39( 10): 807- 812. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211111-00609.张妍, 任贵, 史鑫, 等. 经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后中重度胰腺炎的危险因素分析[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2022, 39( 10): 807- 812. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn321463-20211111-00609. [8] WANG LX, HE L, ZHANG M, et al. Application value of early double guide wire technique combined with pancreatic duct stent implantation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis[J]. Clin J Med Offic, 2024, 52( 1): 90- 91. DOI: 10.16680/j.1671-3826.2024.01.20.王丽鑫, 何林, 张萌, 等. 早期双导丝技术联合胰管支架置入术在胆总管结石内镜逆行胰胆管造影中应用价值[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2024, 52( 1): 90- 91. DOI: 10.16680/j.1671-3826.2024.01.20. [9] MENG WB, LI X, LI ZS. Standardize the management of ERCP complications and accelerate the widespread populari-zation of ERCP in China[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2024, 23( 1): 55- 58. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20231217-00257.孟文勃, 李汛, 李兆申. 规范ERCP并发症管理推进我国ERCP蓬勃发展[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2024, 23( 1): 55- 58. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20231217-00257. [10] YUE P, WANG ZY, ZHANG LD, et al. Clinical characteristics of choledocholithiasis combined with periampullary diverticulum and influencing factor analysis for difficult cannulation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-creatography: a report of 1 920 cases[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2023, 22( 1): 113- 121. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20221201-00723.岳平, 王震宇, 张雷达, 等. 胆总管结石合并壶腹周围憩室临床特征及行ERCP发生困难插管的影响因素分析(附1 920例报告)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2023, 22( 1): 113- 121. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20221201-00723. [11] KOCHAR B, AKSHINTALA VS, AFGHANI E, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2015, 81( 1): 143- 149.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045. [12] KRILL JT, DAVEE T, EDWARDS JS, et al. Risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after double-guidewire biliary cannulation in an average-risk population[J]. Pancreas, 2018, 47( 6): 748- 752. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001070. [13] AFGHANI E, AKSHINTALA VS, KHASHAB MA, et al. 5-Fr vs. 3-Fr pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis[J]. Endoscopy, 2014, 46( 7): 573- 580. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365701. [14] KATO H, TSUTSUMI K, OKADA H. A precut fistulotomy technique for difficult biliary cannulation[J]. Dig Endosc, 2016, 28( Suppl 1): 103. DOI: 10.1111/den.12588. [15] HUANG C, KUNG J, LIU Y, et al. Use of double wire-guided technique and transpancreatic papillary septotomy in difficult ERCP: 4-year experience[J]. Endosc Int Open, 2016, 4( 10): E1107- E1110. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-115407. [16] MOHAMMAD ALIZADEH AH, MOUSAVI M, SALEHI B, et al. Biliary brush cytology in the assessment of biliary strictures at a tertiary center in Iran[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2011, 12( 10): 2793- 2796. [17] WEBER A, SCHMID RM, PRINZ C. Diagnostic approaches for cholangiocarcinoma[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2008, 14( 26): 4131- 4136. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.4131. [18] JUNG GS, HUH JD, LEE SU, et al. Bile duct: Analysis of percutaneous transluminal forceps biopsy in 130 patients suspected of having malignant biliary obstruction[J]. Radiology, 2002, 224( 3): 725- 730. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2242011501. -
本文二维码
计量
- 文章访问数: 119
- HTML全文浏览量: 27
- PDF下载量: 11
- 被引次数: 0

PDF下载 ( 623 KB)
下载: 