Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Dig Dis Sci ; 69(5): 1880-1888, 2024 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38555329

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the standard of care for the management of choledocholithiasis but carries risk of complications which may result in significant morbidity and mortality. While currently available guidelines endorse the use of ERCP for the management of symptomatic common bile duct stones, the need for ERCP in incidentally found asymptomatic choledocholithiasis is more controversial, and practice varies on a geographic and institutional level. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to compare post-ERCP adverse events between asymptomatic and symptomatic choledocholithiasis patients. METHODS: We searched PubMed/Embase/Web of Science databases to include all studies comparing post-ERCP outcomes between asymptomatic and symptomatic choledocholithiasis patients. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), while secondary outcomes included post-ERCP cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. RESULTS: Our analysis included six observational studies, totaling 2,178 choledocholithiasis patients (392 asymptomatic and 1786 symptomatic); 53% were female. Asymptomatic patients exhibited a higher risk of PEP compared with symptomatic patients (11.7% versus 4.8%; RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.56-4.31, p ≤ 0.001). No significant difference was observed in post-ERCP cholangitis, bleeding, or perforation rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Asymptomatic patients with choledocholithiasis appear to have a higher risk of PEP than symptomatic patients, while the risk of other post-ERCP adverse events is similar between the two groups. Interventional endoscopists should thoroughly discuss potential adverse events (particularly PEP) with asymptomatic patients before performing ERCP and utilize PEP-prevention measures more liberally in this subgroup of patients.


Assuntos
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Coledocolitíase , Pancreatite , Humanos , Coledocolitíase/cirurgia , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efeitos adversos , Pancreatite/etiologia , Pancreatite/epidemiologia , Doenças Assintomáticas , Colangite/etiologia , Colangite/epidemiologia , Fatores de Risco , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/diagnóstico
2.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am ; 34(2): 363-381, 2024 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38395489

RESUMO

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) remains a significant procedure-related complication, with multiple risk factors determining the risk including patient demographics, polyp characteristics, endoscopist expertise, and techniques of polypectomy. Immediate PPB is usually treated promptly, but management of delayed PPB can be challenging. Cold snare polypectomy is the optimal technique for small sessile polyps with hot snare polypectomy for pedunculated and large sessile polyps. Topical hemostatic powders and gels are being investigated for the prevention and management of PPB. Further studies are needed to compare these topical agents with conventional therapy.


Assuntos
Pólipos do Colo , Colonoscopia , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal , Humanos , Colo , Pólipos do Colo/cirurgia , Colonoscopia/efeitos adversos , Colonoscopia/métodos , Fatores de Risco , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiologia , Hemorragia Pós-Operatória
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA