ERCP术后高淀粉酶血症的灰色地带:急性胰腺炎的鉴别诊断
Gray Area of Hyperamylaseemia after ERCP: Differential Diagnosis of Acute Pancreatitis
DOI: 10.12677/ACM.2023.1381721, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 231  浏览: 449 
作者: 徐长银*:青海大学研究生院,青海 西宁;王 虎:青海大学附属医院肝胆胰二科,青海 西宁
关键词: ERCP高淀粉酶危险因素急性胰腺炎ERCP High Amylase Risk Factors Acute Pancreatitis
摘要: 内镜逆行性胰胆管造影(Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, ERCP)技术发展迅速,当前不仅仅可以用来诊断胆管、胰腺等消化系统疾病,而且可以实现内镜微创治疗胆总管结石的目的,相比于外科取石治疗,术后相关并发症减少,手术创伤小、术后恢复快、结石残余或复发等问题减少,是一种常用的治疗和诊断胰胆道疾病的工具。胰腺炎是ERCP的重要并发症之一。尽管短暂性高淀粉酶血症是一种更常见和良性的情况,但它必须与ERCP后胰腺炎区分开来。
Abstract: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) technology has developed rapidly, cur-rently not only can be used to diagnose bile duct, pancreas and other digestive diseases, but also can achieve the purpose of endoscopic minimally invasive treatment of common bile duct stones, compared with surgical lithotomy treatment, postoperative related complications are reduced, sur-gical trauma is small, postoperative recovery is fast, stone residue or recurrence and other prob-lems are reduced. It is a commonly used tool for the treatment and diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases. Pancreatitis is one of the important complications of ERCP. Although transient hypera-mylaseemia is a more common and benign condition, it must be distinguished from post-ERCP pan-creatitis.
文章引用:徐长银, 王虎. ERCP术后高淀粉酶血症的灰色地带:急性胰腺炎的鉴别诊断[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(8): 12284-12290. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.1381721

1. 引言

自1968年McCunne首次报道以来 [1] ,ERCP已广泛应用于胰腺和胆道疾病的诊断和治疗,尤其是胆总管结石的治疗。与传统手术相比,它更安全、更有效、损伤更小、住院时间更短,并且在需要重复取石时具有优势 [2] 。然而,其术后并发症有时难以避免。ERCP术后胰腺炎(PEP)是ERCP术后最常见的并发症之一。

据报道,PEP的发生率为1.6%~15.7% [3] 。虽然90%为轻度或中度 [4] ,但1%可发展为急性坏死性胰腺炎 [5] 。胰腺炎出院和再入院预后较差,早期诊断和及时治疗非常重要 [6] 。迄今为止,血清淀粉酶的测定仍是诊断PEP最常用的指标,但对于不同时间点、不同淀粉酶水平下PEP的早期预测仍没有明确的标准 [7] [8] 。

2. ERCP指征的掌握

内窥镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)是胰胆道疾病最常用的诊断和治疗介入方式之一。然而,在过去二十年中,最近的趋势减少了其作为诊断程序的使用,而非侵入性成像技术作为诊断工具越来越受欢迎。ERCP最常见的用途和适应症是从胆道中取出结石;其他指征有恶性、炎性或术后狭窄、壶腹肿物引起的梗阻、Oddi括约肌功能障碍、胆囊和肝脏手术引起的胆汁漏、胆囊炎、胆管炎、急性、复发或慢性胰腺炎、胰腺分裂、胰管漏、积液、囊性引流、胰腺病变和胰腺肿瘤支架置入术。手术包括括约肌切开术、扩张和取出结石、引流和支架置入术、胆管造影活检和测压术 [9] 。

2.1. 胆道梗阻

需采用ERCP诊治的胆胰疾病,无论是良性疾病,如胆总管结石、胆管狭窄、胆漏、胰管结石,还是恶性疾病,如胰头癌、胆管癌等,其引起的胆胰管梗阻、狭窄,几乎都有外科手术指征。对胆道梗阻病人是否采用 ERCP治疗,要根据具体病情。其指征有:① 胆总管结石是良性梗阻的主要病因,如合并胆管炎,有休克、神志变化等重症梗阻性化脓性胆管炎表现,则首选内镜鼻胆管引流,解除胆道梗阻,先挽救生命。待病情稳定后,再考虑进一步治疗方案。② 对胆总管结石超过3个,甚至充满结石,或胆总 管结石直径 > 1.5 cm,机械碎石、取石难以成功,且病人身体状况好,则行腹腔镜胆总管探查取石效果较好。ERCP的治疗可能不成功,且并发症发生率高。③ 对于身体状况差的病人,难以耐受全身麻醉下手术,内镜胆道支架引流是较好选择。恶性梗阻病人需从肿瘤分期和病人全身状况两方面考虑。对于早期胆胰肿瘤病人,手术治疗会明显提高5年生存率,ERCP支架引流只能暂时解除梗阻。相反,晚期胆胰肿瘤病人,或虽是早期,但全身状况差,不能耐受手术的病人,适合ERCP治疗。

2.2. 胆总管结石

胆总管结石是采用ERCP治疗的最常见疾病,然而约50%的胆总管结石病人合并胆囊结石。对于这部分病人,如胆管炎不严重、全身条件较好,ERCP外科医师则会选择一期腹腔镜胆囊切除(laparoscopic cholecystectomy, LC) + ERCP治疗胆总管结石。即在全身麻醉下行LC,同时行ERCP取出胆总管结石。一次麻醉完成两项治疗,显著减少病人痛苦,缩短住院时间。万一ERCP取石不成功,则可继续行腹腔镜胆总管切开取石,或中转剖腹手开展一期LC + ERCP已越来越多。最近报道对于曾行Roux-en-Y胃肠吻合的胆囊结石、胆总管结石病人,先LC,然后腹腔镜下作胃大弯侧切口,术中将十二指肠镜沿此切口插入胃腔,进入空肠、十二指肠行ERCP,将胆总管结石取出,缝合胃切口 [10] [11] 。由于路径短,操作容易,从而完成ERCP的取石。

3. ERCP术后最常见且严重的并发症为急性胰腺炎

ERCP术后胰腺炎(post-ERCP pancretitis, PEP)是最为常见的临床并发症。PEP发生的三大因素,分别为患者因素、操作过程因素、操作者因素。Oddi括约肌功能障碍(Sphincterofoddidysfimction, SOD)、复发性急性胰腺炎、女性、年龄小于40岁 [10] 等容易发生胰腺炎并发症。引起PEP相关操作主要包括乳头肌切开、插管困难或胰管插管误入、反复插管造影等。困难插管和反复插管都可能引起乳头肌痉挛水肿,进而导致胰液流出受阻。EST容易导致切口过大损伤胰管开口致胰液引流不畅,进而发生PEP。反复造影可能导致胰管压力过大从而诱发PEP,国外一项Meta分析表明,减少造影剂使用,使用导丝插管可提高成功率,且同时应避免插管误入胰管,减少术后胰腺炎的发生。因此充分了解PEP发生的相关因素可以有效降低其发生率,其次严格掌握其禁忌症避免行不必要的ERCP术也能有效降低其发生率。困难插管中为了有效提高插管成功率,可以先行预切开,既可以减轻对乳头的损伤,并且不会增加胰腺炎发生风险 [12] 。球囊扩张术由于能有效压迫乳头,可以减少出血等并发症,但是也会增加胰腺炎发生的风险,同时大球囊扩张乳头能降低胰腺炎发生风险。胰液引流不畅常由于胆道梗阻,因此指南推荐使用胰管支架管置入保证胰液流出道通畅进而可以显著降低PEP的发生率。YANG等 [10] 认为,术前经直肠非甾体抗炎药给药可有效预防术后胰腺炎的发生,然而KATO等表明,口服塞来昔布对预防术后胰腺炎的效果并不明显。

血清胰酶升高是因为ERCP过程中操作对胰腺实质造成的轻微损伤;然而,无症状高淀粉酶血症是一种更常见的情况,应与真正的急性PEP区分开来,据报道在6.8%至70%之间 [13] 。在大多数医院,在ERCP术后2或4小时,第一次控制淀粉酶和血象。LaFerla等 [14] 较早发现ERCP术后2小时血清淀粉酶水平迅速升高。PEP定义为胰型腹痛,ERCP后24小时血清淀粉酶水平升高超过正常上限3倍 [15] 。为了规范诊断,修订的亚特兰大标准将影像学和器官衰竭纳入考虑 [16] 。在ERCP术后2或4小时进行体格检查是有争议的,因为麻醉的影响和由于充气引起的腹部膨胀,以及其他原因,如穿孔 [17] 。胰腺炎可导致胰腺感染–败血症、坏死、多器官衰竭和最终死亡。一旦患者被诊断为PEP,应尽一切努力预防胰腺炎并发症。

4. 尝试确定可用于预测或定义短暂性高淀粉酶血症(TH)和真正急性胰腺炎之间差异的实验室标记物和患者特征

Mikail Cakir等人一项回顾性队列研究中接受ERCP治疗胆总管结石患者的医疗档案。主要结果是与PEP相关的危险因素。为了确定实验室参数的截止值,进行了接收机操作员特性分析。结果发现胆管炎(p = 0.018)、Wirsung插管(p = 0.008)、第12和24 h腹痛(p < 0.001)、第12 h淀粉酶水平(p < 0.001)、第6和12 h c反应蛋白(CRP)水平(p = 0.001和p < 0.001)、第6和12 h白细胞(WBC)水平(p = 0.001和p < 0.001)是PEP发生的重要因素。CRP水平高于8 mg/L,WBC水平高于10 × 109/L,阴性预测值分别超过70%和90%。体格检查和炎症参数是诊断PEP的重要依据。CRP和WBC具有较高的阴性预测和敏感性。淀粉酶水平在ERCP后12 h升高最为明显,PEP发生后淀粉酶水平显著升高(p < 0.001)。在ERCP术后2或4小时进行体格检查是有争议的,因为麻醉的影响和由于充气引起的腹部膨胀,以及其他原因,如穿孔 [17] 。第一次腹痛评估在第12小时的时间点是有意义的,因为手术过程中的充血和其他原因的腹痛可能导致误解。

5. PEP的预防及治疗

5.1. 药物预防

直肠NSAIDs预防PEP的确切作用机制尚不清楚。目前最流行的假说是非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)通过抑制磷脂酶A2起作用,导致胰腺中的炎症级联减少以预防ERCP后的胰腺炎,也可能是一种环氧合酶参与的更复杂的机制。

已经研究了许多试剂如硝酸甘油、蛋白酶抑制剂和皮质类固醇用于PEP预防的潜在用途,但目前尚缺乏大型临床试验证据。硝酸甘油可以显着降低Oddi括约肌的压力,促进胰腺引流。2010年进行的荟萃分析共有4项随机对照试验显示PEP没有显着降低 [18] 。最近一项2017年的单中心随机对照研究显示,联合使用硝酸甘油和胰高血糖素可以减少PEP [19] 。该研究是在硝酸甘油和胰高血糖素对Oddi松弛括约肌有协同作用的假设下进行的。

蛋白酶抑制剂抑制胰蛋白酶和其他蛋白酶,其假设可以减少腺泡细胞损伤的过程,从而降低PEP的风险。一项随机,前瞻性,双盲,多中心研究显示,608例患者在接受ERCP治疗前1小时接受甲磺酸加贝酯治疗的患者PEP发生率低于接受生理盐水治疗的患者(分别为3.4%和9.4%) [20] 。2011年由18项研究组成的荟萃分析显示接受蛋白酶抑制剂的患者PEP风险显着降低但风险较小。然而,在高质量研究的亚组分析中,没有显着的效果 [21] 。

生长抑素被假设通过减少Oddi括约肌压力,胰腺分泌减少,细胞因子活性改变和胰腺腺泡细胞凋亡的诱导来帮助预防PEP [22] 。

5.2. 技术预防

ERCP术后引起胰腺炎的技术预防尤其重要,其主要目标涉及预防由于向胰管注入造影剂而引起的机械和化学损伤,避免反复插管尝试和促进胰腺引流。

1) 对于大多数治疗性ERCP,胆总管的深插管是必要的,大型试验表明,胰管造影剂注射次数是PEP的独立预测指标 [23] 。一项对7项随机对照试验进行的荟萃分析显示,导丝辅助插管的PEP风险低于造影辅助插管(3.2% vs. 8.7%;相对风险RR 0.38;95%CI, 0.19~0.76)。此外,导丝引导插管比辅助插管成功的主要插管率更高(89% vs. 78%;RR 1.19;95%CI, 1.05~1.35) [24] 。Cennamo等人的另一项荟萃分析。2009年进行的五项试验进一步支持了导丝辅助插管的假设,其PEP风险低于造影辅助插管 [25] 。

2) 胰管支架置入已被用于难以插管,因为它有可能将导管或导丝从胰管口转移到CBD [26] 。除了辅助插管外,还假设胰腺支架可以促进胰腺创伤后胰液的流动 [27] 。2013年的一项荟萃分析涉及14项随机对照研究,结果显示,在高风险和混合病例组中,PEP伴有胰腺支架置入的统计学显着降低 [28] 。

5.3. 治疗

1) 积极的围手术期液体补充是另一种预防PEP的方法。微循环和灌注的紊乱是严重胰腺炎的发展原因之一 [29] 。研究显示与标准液体补充相比,接受乳酸林格氏液(LR)溶液积极液体补充的患者PEP发生率降低(0% vs. 17%,p = 0.016) [30] 。一项前瞻性研究发现接受积极补充LR溶液的患者的PEP率显着低于标准LR组(3% vs. 11.6%;RR 0.26;95%CI, 0.08~0.76,p = 0.008) [31] 。

2) 联合治疗直肠吲哚美辛和舌下硝酸酯类的联合治疗也显示出有效的结果,硝酸酯类使用组的低血压,头痛或头晕没有显着差异。但是,需要多中心试验来证实这些发现。双氯芬酸加生长抑素在预防PEP方面也显示出前景(4.7% vs. 10.4%,p = 0.015) [31] 。高风险患者的胰腺支架置入可降低PEP的风险。然而,支架放置失败会增加PEP风险 [32] 。

6. 结论与展望

其危险因素胆管炎、插管、第12和24 h腹痛、第12 h淀粉酶水平、第6和12 h c反应蛋白(CRP)水平、第6和12 h白细胞(WBC)水平是PEP发生的重要因素。CRP水平高于8 mg/L,WBC水平高于10 × 109/L,阴性预测值分别超过70%和90%。体格检查和炎症参数是诊断PEP的重要依据。CRP和WBC具有较高的阴性预测和敏感性。淀粉酶水平在ERCP后12 h升高最为明显,PEP发生后淀粉酶水平显著升高。其预防及治疗应从技术层面及药物等其他方面联合入手,避免反复插管尝试和促进胰腺引流,高风险患者的胰腺支架置入可降低PEP的风险,且须提高支架置入成功率。

ERCP技术日益成熟,已然成为较为成熟的微创介入技术,但是ERCP仍是内镜技术中最难及最具有挑战性的一项技术,其并发症在一定程度上难以避免,其ERCP术后短暂性高淀粉酶血症(TH)和真正急性胰腺炎之间的鉴别诊断一直困扰着临床医生,精确的鉴别诊断可指导临床医生较精确地预防术后急性胰腺炎的发生,同时避免过度预防而增加病人负担,延长住院周期。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] McCune, W.S., Shorb, P.E. and Moscovitz, H. (1968) Endoscopic Cannulation of the Ampulla of Vater: A Preliminary Report. Annals of Surgery, 167, 752-756.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-196805000-00013
[2] Meng, W.B., Leung, J.W., Zhang, K., Zhou, W., Wang, Z., Zhang, L., Sun, H., Xue, P., Liu, W., Wang, Q., et al. (2019) Optimal Di-lation Time for Combined Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy and Balloon Dilation for Common Bile Duct Stones: A Multicentre, Single-Blinded, Randomised Controlled Trial. The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 4, 425-434.
[3] Cotton, P.B., Garrow, D.A., Gallagher, J. and Romagnuolo, J. (2009) Risk Factors for Complications af-ter ERCP: A Multivariate Analysis of 11,497 Procedures over 12 Years. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 70, 80-88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.039
[4] Dumonceau, J.M., Andriulli, A., Deviere, J., Mariani, A., Rigaux, J., Baron, T.H. and Testoni, P.A. (2010) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: Prophylaxis of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. Endoscopy, 42, 503-515.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1244208
[5] Elmunzer, B.J. (2015) Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Chol-angiopancreatography Pancreatitis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 25, 725-736.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2015.06.006
[6] Gottlieb, K., Sherman, S., Pezzi, J., Esber, E. and Lehman, G.A. (1996) Early Recognition of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis by Clinical Assessment and Serum Pancreaticenzymes. The Ameri-can Journal of Gastroenterology, 91, 1553-1557.
[7] Lee, Y.K., Yang, M.J., Kim, S.S., Noh, C.K., Cho, H.J., Lim, S.G., Hwang, J.C., Yoo, B.M. and Kim, J.H. (2017) Prediction of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatog-raphy Pancreatitis Using 4-Hour Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Serum Amylase and Lipase Levels. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 32, 1814-1819.
https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1814
[8] Sutton, V.R., Hong, M.K. and Thomas, P.R. (2011) Using the 4-Hour Post-ERCP Amylase Level to Predict Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. The Journal of Politics, 12, 372-376.
[9] Cakir, M., Hut, A., Akturk, O.M., Biçkici, B.E. and Yildirim, D. (2021) A Grey Zone of Hyperamylasemia following Endo-scopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Follow-up and Differential Diagnosis from Acute Pancreatitis. Videosur-gery and Other Miniinvasive Techniques, 16, 38-44.
https://doi.org/10.5114/wiitm.2020.94545
[10] Krutsri, C., Kida, M., Yamauchi, H., et al. (2019) Current Status of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 25, 3313-3333.
https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i26.3313
[11] Gonzalez-Urquijo, M., Baca-Arzaga, A.A., Flores-Villalba, E. and Rodarte-Shade, M. (2019) Laparoscopy-Assisted Transgastric Endoscopic Retro-Grade Cholangiopancreatography for Choledocholithiasis after Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Case Report. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 44, 46-50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2019.06.008
[12] Classen, M. and Demling, L. (1974) Endoscopic Sphincterotomy of the Papilla of Vater and Extraction of Stones from the Choledochal Duct. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 99, 496-497.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1107790
[13] Li, G.Z., Wang, F., Fang, J., Zha, H.L. and Zhao, Q. (2018) Risk Factors for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Evidence from 1786 Cases. Medi-cal Science Monitor, 24, 8544-8552.
https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.913314
[14] LaFerla, G., Gordon, S., Archibald, M. and Murray, W.R. (1986) Hyperamylasaemia and Acute Pancreatitis following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas, 1, 160-163.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006676-198603000-00009
[15] Cotton, P.B., Lehman, G., Vennes, J., et al. (1991) En-doscopic Sphincterotomy Complications and Their Management: An Attempt at Consensus. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 37, 383-393.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(91)70740-2
[16] Foster, B.R., Jensen, K.K., Bakis, G., Shaaban, A.M. and Coakley, F.V. (2016) Revised Atlanta Classification for Acute Pancreatitis: A Pictorial Essay. RadioGraphics, 36, 675-687.
https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2016150097
[17] Thaker, A.M., Mosko, J.D. and Berzin, T.M. (2015) Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis. Gastroenterology Report, 3, 32-40.
https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/gou083
[18] Shao, L.M., Chen, Q.Y., Chen, M.Y. and Cai, J.T. (2010) Nitroglycerin in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Meta-Analysis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 55, 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-008-0709-9
[19] Katsinelos, P., Lazaraki, G., Chatzimavroudis, G., et al. (2017) Impact of Nitroglycerin and Glucagon Administration on Selective Common Bile Duct Cannulation and Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 52, 50-55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2016.1228117
[20] Manes, G., Ardizzone, S., Lombardi, G., et al. (2007) Effi-cacy of Postprocedure Administration of Gabexate Mesylate in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 65, 982-987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.02.055
[21] Seta, T. and Noguchi, Y. (2011) Protease Inhibitors for Preventing Complications Associated with ERCP: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 73, 700-706.E2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.022
[22] Concepción-Martín, M., Gómez-Oliva, C., Juanes, A., et al. (2014) Somatostatin for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial. Endoscopy, 46, 851-856.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1377306
[23] Cheng, C.L., Sherman, S., Watkins, J.L., et al. (2006) Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Prospective Multicenter Study. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 101, 139-147.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00380.x
[24] Cheung, J., Tsoi, K.K., Quan, W.L., Lau, J.Y.W. and Sung, J.J.Y. (2009) Guidewire versus Conventional Contrast Cannulation of the Common Bile Duct for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 70, 1211-1219.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.007
[25] Cennamo, V., Fuccio, L., Zagari, R.M., et al. (2009) Can a Wire-Guided Cannulation Technique Increase Bile Duct Cannulation Rate and Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis? A Me-ta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Gast Roenterology, 104, 2343-2350.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.269
[26] Tarnasky, P.R., Palesch, Y.Y., Cunningham, J.T., et al. (1998) Pancreat-ic Stenting Prevents Pancreatitis after Biliary Sphincterotomy in Patients with Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction. Gastroen-terology, 115, 1518-1524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(98)70031-9
[27] Choudhary, A., Bechtold, M.L., Arif, M., et al. (2011) Pan-creatic Stents for Prophylaxis against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 73, 275-282.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039
[28] Mazaki, T., Mado, K., Masuda, H. and Shiono, M. (2014) Prophy-lactic Pancreatic Stent Placement and Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: An Updated Meta-Analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology, 49, 343-355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-013-0806-1
[29] Cuthbertson, C. and Christophi, C. (2006) Disturbances of the Microcirculation in Acute Pancreatitis. British Journal of Surgery, 93. 518-530.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5316
[30] Buxbaum, J., Yan, A., Yeh, K., et al. (2014) Aggressive Hydration with Lactated Ringer’s Solution Reduces Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Clinical Gas-troenterology and Hepatology, 12, 303-307.E1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.07.026
[31] Katsinelos, P., Fasoulas, K., Paroutoglou, G., et al. (2012) Combi-nation of Diclofenac plus Somatostatin in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Pla-cebo-Controlled Trial. Endoscopy, 44, 53-59.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1291440
[32] Choksi, N.S., Fogel, E.L., Cote, G.A., et al. (2015) The Risk of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and the Protective Effect of Rectal Indomethacin in Cases of Attempted But Unsuccessful Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 81, 150-155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.033