美国国立卫生研究院关于内窥镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP)诊断和治疗的最新科学声明。

{"title":"美国国立卫生研究院关于内窥镜逆行胆管造影术(ERCP)诊断和治疗的最新科学声明。","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data regarding the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A non-Federal, non-advocate, 13-member panel representing the fields of gastroenterology, hepatology, clinical epidemiology, oncology, biostatistics, surgery, health services research, radiology, internal medicine, and the public. In addition, experts in these same fields presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of approximately 300.</p><p><strong>Evidence: </strong>Presentations by experts; a systematic review of the medical literature provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and an extensive bibliography of ERCP research papers, prepared by the National Library of Medicine. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience.</p><p><strong>Conference process: </strong>Answering predefined questions, the panel drafted a statement based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The draft statement was read in its entirety on the final day of the conference and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. The panel then met in executive session to consider these comments and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The statement was made available on the World Wide Web at http://consensus.nih.gov immediately after the conference. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and ERCP have comparable sensitivity and specificity. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy do not require ERCP preoperatively if there is low probability of having choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and postoperative ERCP are both safe and reliable in clearing common bile duct stones. ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and stone removal is a valuable therapeutic modality in choledocholithiasis with jaundice, dilated common bile duct, acute pancreatitis, or cholangitis. In patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer, the principal advantage of ERCP is palliation of biliary obstruction when surgery is not elected. In patients who have pancreatic or biliary cancer and who are surgical candidates, there is no established role for preoperative biliary drainage by ERCP. Tissue sampling for patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer not undergoing surgery may be achieved by ERCP, but this is not always diagnostic. ERCP is the best means to diagnose ampullary cancers. ERCP has no role in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis except when biliary pancreatitis is suspected. In patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, early intervention with ERCP reduces morbidity and mortality compared with delayed ERCP. ERCP with appropriate therapy is beneficial in selected patients who have either recurrent pancreatitis or pancreatic pseudocysts. Patients with type I sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) respond to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). Patients with type II SOD should not undergo diagnostic ERCP alone. If sphincter of Oddi manometer pressures are >40 mmHg, ES is beneficial in some patients. Avoidance of unnecessary ERCP is the best way to reduce the number of complications. ERCP should be avoided if there is a low likelihood of biliary stone or stricture, especially in women with recurrent pain, a normal bilirubin, and no other objective sign of biliary disease. Endoscopists performing ERCP should have appropriate training and expertise before performing advanced procedures. With newer diagnostic imaging technologies emerging, ERCP is evolving into a predominantly therapeutic procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":86986,"journal":{"name":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","volume":"19 1","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data regarding the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A non-Federal, non-advocate, 13-member panel representing the fields of gastroenterology, hepatology, clinical epidemiology, oncology, biostatistics, surgery, health services research, radiology, internal medicine, and the public. In addition, experts in these same fields presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of approximately 300.</p><p><strong>Evidence: </strong>Presentations by experts; a systematic review of the medical literature provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and an extensive bibliography of ERCP research papers, prepared by the National Library of Medicine. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience.</p><p><strong>Conference process: </strong>Answering predefined questions, the panel drafted a statement based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The draft statement was read in its entirety on the final day of the conference and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. The panel then met in executive session to consider these comments and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The statement was made available on the World Wide Web at http://consensus.nih.gov immediately after the conference. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and ERCP have comparable sensitivity and specificity. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy do not require ERCP preoperatively if there is low probability of having choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and postoperative ERCP are both safe and reliable in clearing common bile duct stones. ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and stone removal is a valuable therapeutic modality in choledocholithiasis with jaundice, dilated common bile duct, acute pancreatitis, or cholangitis. In patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer, the principal advantage of ERCP is palliation of biliary obstruction when surgery is not elected. In patients who have pancreatic or biliary cancer and who are surgical candidates, there is no established role for preoperative biliary drainage by ERCP. Tissue sampling for patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer not undergoing surgery may be achieved by ERCP, but this is not always diagnostic. ERCP is the best means to diagnose ampullary cancers. ERCP has no role in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis except when biliary pancreatitis is suspected. In patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, early intervention with ERCP reduces morbidity and mortality compared with delayed ERCP. ERCP with appropriate therapy is beneficial in selected patients who have either recurrent pancreatitis or pancreatic pseudocysts. Patients with type I sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) respond to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). Patients with type II SOD should not undergo diagnostic ERCP alone. If sphincter of Oddi manometer pressures are >40 mmHg, ES is beneficial in some patients. Avoidance of unnecessary ERCP is the best way to reduce the number of complications. ERCP should be avoided if there is a low likelihood of biliary stone or stricture, especially in women with recurrent pain, a normal bilirubin, and no other objective sign of biliary disease. Endoscopists performing ERCP should have appropriate training and expertise before performing advanced procedures. With newer diagnostic imaging technologies emerging, ERCP is evolving into a predominantly therapeutic procedure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":86986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"1-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:为医疗保健提供者、患者和公众提供一个负责任的评估目前可用的关于内窥镜逆行胆管胰胆管造影(ERCP)用于诊断和治疗的数据。参与者:一个非联邦、非倡导者、13人组成的小组,代表胃肠病学、肝病学、临床流行病学、肿瘤学、生物统计学、外科、卫生服务研究、放射学、内科和公众等领域。此外,这些领域的专家还向小组和大约300名会议听众介绍了数据。证据:专家陈述;由卫生保健研究和质量机构提供的医学文献系统综述;以及国家医学图书馆准备的ERCP研究论文的广泛参考书目。科学证据优先于临床轶事经验。会议过程:回答预先确定的问题,小组根据公开论坛和科学文献提出的科学证据起草了一份声明。声明草案全文在会议的最后一天宣读,并分发给专家和听众征求意见。该小组随后在执行会议上开会审议这些意见,并在会议结束时发布了一份修订后的声明。会议结束后,该声明立即在万维网http://consensus.nih.gov上公布。本声明是专家组的独立报告,不是NIH或联邦政府的政策声明。结论:磁共振胆管造影(MRCP)、超声内镜(EUS)和ERCP诊断胆总管结石的敏感性和特异性相当。如果胆囊切除术患者发生胆总管结石的可能性较低,术前不需要ERCP。腹腔镜胆总管探查和术后ERCP清除胆总管结石安全可靠。ERCP联合内镜下括约肌切开术和取石术是治疗胆总管结石合并黄疸、胆总管扩张、急性胰腺炎或胆管炎的一种有价值的治疗方式。对于胰腺癌或胆道癌患者,ERCP的主要优点是在不选择手术时可以缓解胆道梗阻。对于胰脏癌或胆道癌且需要手术治疗的患者,术前ERCP对胆道引流的作用尚未确定。对于未接受手术的胰腺或胆道癌患者,可以通过ERCP进行组织取样,但这并不总是诊断性的。ERCP是诊断壶腹癌的最佳手段。ERCP在诊断急性胰腺炎方面没有作用,除非怀疑是胆源性胰腺炎。在严重胆源性胰腺炎患者中,与延迟ERCP相比,早期干预ERCP可降低发病率和死亡率。ERCP配合适当的治疗对复发性胰腺炎或胰腺假性囊肿患者是有益的。I型Oddi括约肌功能障碍(SOD)患者对内镜下括约肌切开术(ES)有反应。II型SOD患者不应单独接受ERCP诊断。如果Oddi括约肌压力计的压力在50 ~ 40 mmHg, ES对某些患者是有益的。避免不必要的ERCP是减少并发症的最好方法。如果胆道结石或胆道狭窄的可能性较低,尤其是反复疼痛、胆红素正常、无其他胆道疾病客观体征的女性,应避免行ERCP。内窥镜医师在进行ERCP前应接受适当的培训和专业知识。随着新的诊断成像技术的出现,ERCP正在发展成为一种主要的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
NIH state-of-the-science statement on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.

Objective: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data regarding the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for diagnosis and therapy.

Participants: A non-Federal, non-advocate, 13-member panel representing the fields of gastroenterology, hepatology, clinical epidemiology, oncology, biostatistics, surgery, health services research, radiology, internal medicine, and the public. In addition, experts in these same fields presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of approximately 300.

Evidence: Presentations by experts; a systematic review of the medical literature provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; and an extensive bibliography of ERCP research papers, prepared by the National Library of Medicine. Scientific evidence was given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience.

Conference process: Answering predefined questions, the panel drafted a statement based on the scientific evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The draft statement was read in its entirety on the final day of the conference and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. The panel then met in executive session to consider these comments and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The statement was made available on the World Wide Web at http://consensus.nih.gov immediately after the conference. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government.

Conclusions: In the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and ERCP have comparable sensitivity and specificity. Patients undergoing cholecystectomy do not require ERCP preoperatively if there is low probability of having choledocholithiasis. Laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and postoperative ERCP are both safe and reliable in clearing common bile duct stones. ERCP with endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) and stone removal is a valuable therapeutic modality in choledocholithiasis with jaundice, dilated common bile duct, acute pancreatitis, or cholangitis. In patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer, the principal advantage of ERCP is palliation of biliary obstruction when surgery is not elected. In patients who have pancreatic or biliary cancer and who are surgical candidates, there is no established role for preoperative biliary drainage by ERCP. Tissue sampling for patients with pancreatic or biliary cancer not undergoing surgery may be achieved by ERCP, but this is not always diagnostic. ERCP is the best means to diagnose ampullary cancers. ERCP has no role in the diagnosis of acute pancreatitis except when biliary pancreatitis is suspected. In patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, early intervention with ERCP reduces morbidity and mortality compared with delayed ERCP. ERCP with appropriate therapy is beneficial in selected patients who have either recurrent pancreatitis or pancreatic pseudocysts. Patients with type I sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) respond to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). Patients with type II SOD should not undergo diagnostic ERCP alone. If sphincter of Oddi manometer pressures are >40 mmHg, ES is beneficial in some patients. Avoidance of unnecessary ERCP is the best way to reduce the number of complications. ERCP should be avoided if there is a low likelihood of biliary stone or stricture, especially in women with recurrent pain, a normal bilirubin, and no other objective sign of biliary disease. Endoscopists performing ERCP should have appropriate training and expertise before performing advanced procedures. With newer diagnostic imaging technologies emerging, ERCP is evolving into a predominantly therapeutic procedure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信