錢陽陽　趙朕華　廖專　李兆申

?

·綜述與講座·

ERCP術(shù)后胰腺炎的最新研究進(jìn)展

錢陽陽趙朕華廖專李兆申

200433上海，第二軍醫(yī)大學(xué)長海醫(yī)院消化內(nèi)科

內(nèi)鏡下逆行胰膽管造影術(shù)(ERCP)是膽胰疾病一項(xiàng)重要的診斷與治療技術(shù)，具有診斷確切、療效好、創(chuàng)傷小、不良反應(yīng)少及費(fèi)用低等優(yōu)點(diǎn)。但其作為有創(chuàng)操作，術(shù)后有一定并發(fā)癥，包括ERCP術(shù)后胰腺炎(post-ERCP pancreatitis, PEP)、出血、感染等，其中，PEP是最常見、最嚴(yán)重的并發(fā)癥，一旦并發(fā)重癥胰腺炎，患者的生命會受到嚴(yán)重威脅。為了有效預(yù)防PEP，國內(nèi)外學(xué)者對其發(fā)病機(jī)制、危險(xiǎn)因素及防治措施等方面進(jìn)行了廣泛而深入的研究。迄今為止，直腸給予非甾體類抗炎藥及胰管支架置入的效果是比較明確的，但仍未有效解決這一世界性的難題。本文就PEP的定義、發(fā)生率、危險(xiǎn)因素尤其是預(yù)防治療的最新研究作一綜述。

一、ERCP術(shù)后胰腺炎的概況

眾所周知，早在1991年Cotton等[1]專家即提出了PEP的共識定義：ERCP術(shù)后出現(xiàn)急性胰腺炎相關(guān)的臨床癥狀，包括新出現(xiàn)的或加重的腹部疼痛，伴有術(shù)后24 h血清淀粉酶超過正常上限的3倍，并且需住院一天以上。依據(jù)患者的住院時間長短及其治療措施，可將PEP的嚴(yán)重程度分為輕型、中型和重型。

目前PEP的診斷采用的是臨床定義，包括：(1)典型腹痛癥狀；(2)ERCP術(shù)后24 h血清淀粉酶、脂肪酶超過正常上限的3倍；(3)CT提示胰腺炎。只要符合以上3個指標(biāo)中的任意兩項(xiàng)，臨床即可診斷為PEP。Artifon等[2]收集了300例ERCP患者術(shù)后的血清淀粉酶、脂肪酶和腹部CT的相關(guān)資料，比較了臨床定義和共識定義，認(rèn)為共識定義低估了PEP的發(fā)生率，不能發(fā)現(xiàn)所有的PEP，而臨床定義則能更有效地診斷PEP。

盡管PEP的研究得到廣泛開展，但其發(fā)生率卻并未得到有效的下降。Kochar等[3]對1977年至2012年間的108個隨機(jī)對照試驗(yàn)(RCT)中13 296例患者PEP的發(fā)生率、嚴(yán)重度及死亡率進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)回顧，發(fā)現(xiàn)PEP的總發(fā)生率是9.7%(表1)。

PEP的發(fā)病機(jī)制復(fù)雜，但不管源頭是什么，其過程都存在一條共同通路，即產(chǎn)生級聯(lián)反應(yīng)導(dǎo)致蛋白水解酶過早激活，胰腺組織自我消化，腺泡分泌受損，從而產(chǎn)生PEP的臨床癥狀[4-5]。

表1　13 296例PEP的發(fā)生率、嚴(yán)重度及死亡率(%)

注：SOD：Oddi括約肌功能障礙

二、PEP的危險(xiǎn)因素

既往已有很多研究探討過PEP發(fā)生的危險(xiǎn)因素，其中一些已取得相當(dāng)?shù)墓沧R，這些危險(xiǎn)因素主要可分為患者相關(guān)性和操作相關(guān)性。

1．患者相關(guān)性：(1)性別：女性比男性更容易發(fā)生PEP。女性是PEP的危險(xiǎn)因素比較明確[6]。不過也有研究表明SOD本身就會增加PEP的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，而女性SOD的發(fā)生率較男性高[7]。(2)胰腺炎病史：Chen等[8]研究發(fā)現(xiàn)既往發(fā)生過胰腺炎的患者發(fā)生PEP的概率是5.46%，而對照組則為3.21%(P<0.01)，既往發(fā)生有PEP的患者再次發(fā)生PEP的概率是17.82%，對照組僅為5.03%(P<0.01)。這可能與胰腺長期分泌不暢，胰腺萎縮和胰酶減少有關(guān)。(3)SOD：這是PEP的一個確定的危險(xiǎn)因素[9]。發(fā)病機(jī)制可能為各種因素致使括約肌痙攣及水腫導(dǎo)致胰管引流不暢，放置胰管支架可降低 PEP發(fā)生率。(4)年齡：目前年齡的因素還不明確。有些專家認(rèn)為年齡(>60歲)是一個重要的保護(hù)因素，隨著年齡的增長，胰腺外分泌功能越來越差，這也能解釋為什么年老的患者PEP的發(fā)生率低。Finkelmeier等[10]發(fā)現(xiàn)80歲以上的患者PEP發(fā)生率顯著低于其他組，但20～39歲的年齡是一個危險(xiǎn)因素。(5)其他因素：黃疸、高血壓等均可增加PEP的發(fā)生率，壺腹周圍憩室、膽總管結(jié)石等是否為高危因素尚存在爭議。

2．技術(shù)相關(guān)性：(1)插管困難：插管困難包括插管的時間及插管的次數(shù)[11]。反復(fù)多次的插管容易造成 Oddi括約肌痙攣與乳頭水腫,導(dǎo)絲引導(dǎo)插管可能造成乳頭部損傷，導(dǎo)致胰液引流不暢及胰腺炎的發(fā)生。(2)內(nèi)鏡下十二指腸乳頭括約肌切開術(shù)(EST)：關(guān)于EST是否為危險(xiǎn)因素尚有爭議。Akashi等[12]認(rèn)為EST使周圍組織水腫從而阻塞胰管引起PEP，但在許多研究中，EST并非危險(xiǎn)因素。理論上講，EST降低了胰管開口的張力，所以，PEP的發(fā)生很大程度上取決于操作者的技巧[13]。(3)胰管顯影：造影劑進(jìn)入胰管使胰管顯影也是導(dǎo)致PEP的危險(xiǎn)因素之一。Kakutani等[14]通過單變量和多變量分析均發(fā)現(xiàn)胰管造影是胰腺炎的一大危險(xiǎn)因素(P<0.001;OR= 5.55;95%CI2.98～10.33)。(4)預(yù)切開：乳頭預(yù)切開可能導(dǎo)致乳頭水腫，胰管開口阻塞。Ding等[6]的薈萃分析結(jié)果表明乳頭預(yù)切開的患者PEP發(fā)生的概率為對照組的兩倍多。不過，以前有研究表明局部切開乳頭的頂部會使PEP的發(fā)生率降低[15]。(5)其他因素：長時間操作會增加PEP的發(fā)生率，內(nèi)鏡下鼻膽管引流、內(nèi)鏡下膽道置管等是否增加PEP的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)仍需更多研究加以證明。

三、PEP的防治措施

1．藥物預(yù)防：目前臨床PEP預(yù)防用藥主要包括抗炎藥物、減少胰酶分泌的藥物、蛋白酶抑制劑、降低Oddi括約肌壓力的藥物等。2010年歐洲胃腸鏡協(xié)會指南依據(jù)5個RCT結(jié)果，推薦經(jīng)直腸給予非甾體類藥物預(yù)防PEP[16]。

抗炎藥物包括非甾體類抗炎藥(NSAIDs)、類固醇、IL-10、別嘌呤醇、己酮可可堿、利培酮、阿瑞匹坦等。NSAIDs的研究是最多的?；贜ASIDs有效、低價、安全、分布廣等特點(diǎn)，NSAIDs經(jīng)直腸給藥是現(xiàn)今唯一臨床指南推薦的PEP預(yù)防用藥[17]。NSAIDs能預(yù)防PEP的原因在于它能夠抑制急性胰腺炎發(fā)病機(jī)制中的相關(guān)通路，包括磷脂酶A2的激活，前列腺素合成增加及中性粒細(xì)胞-內(nèi)皮細(xì)胞黏附[18]。Sun等[19]對7篇RCT的1 846例患者進(jìn)行了薈萃分析，結(jié)果顯示NSAIDs經(jīng)直腸給藥能顯著降低PEP的發(fā)生率，減輕PEP的嚴(yán)重程度及ERCP術(shù)后2 h的血清淀粉酶。Li等[20]的薈萃分析則表明NSAIDs能有效降低PEP的發(fā)生率，而對減輕PEP的嚴(yán)重程度沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。NSAIDs藥物中研究最多的當(dāng)屬雙氯芬酸和吲哚美辛。研究表明，ERCP術(shù)前或術(shù)后直腸給予吲哚美辛能顯著降低PEP的發(fā)生率[21]，且這一作用對高危或低危PEP患者均有效[22]。Patai等[23]的隨機(jī)對照研究發(fā)現(xiàn)直腸給予100 mg吲哚美辛顯著降低了PEP的發(fā)生率，尤其是對于插管困難及高危PEP的患者。Yoshihara等[24]對比了直腸給予不同劑量的雙氯芬酸后PEP的發(fā)生率，發(fā)現(xiàn)50 mg的效果優(yōu)于25 mg。但肌內(nèi)注射雙氯芬酸是否能降低PEP的發(fā)生率仍有爭議[25]。

生長抑素及其類似物奧曲肽能通過直接減少消化酶的合成釋放，以及間接抑制胰泌素和膽囊收縮素的生成來抑制胰腺外分泌功能[26]，降低血漿氨基酸的濃度，同時還有抗炎和細(xì)胞保護(hù)的作用，但其用于預(yù)防PEP的療效尚待確定。Omata等[27]的薈萃分析顯示生長抑素和大劑量的奧曲肽能降低PEP，且胰腺導(dǎo)管內(nèi)注射生長抑素、膽囊括約肌切開術(shù)、12 h大劑量靜脈滴注或靜脈推注等情況下療效更好。Concepcion-Martin等[28]的隨機(jī)雙盲試驗(yàn)則發(fā)現(xiàn)靜脈內(nèi)大劑量給予生長抑素，隨后短時間輸注生長抑素并不能降低PEP的發(fā)生率。Bai等[29]進(jìn)行的多中心隨機(jī)對照研究表明生長抑素(ERCP術(shù)前250 μg靜脈注射，術(shù)后250 μg/h靜脈滴注11 h)對于PEP的預(yù)防及ERCP術(shù)后的高淀粉酶血癥都是有益的。Zhao等[30]的臨床研究表明ERCP術(shù)前給予生長抑素對于高危而非低危PEP患者有益，若術(shù)后給藥則沒有預(yù)防PEP的作用。由此看來，生長抑素及其類似物奧曲肽的給藥時機(jī)、劑量、方式等都會對預(yù)防PEP的療效產(chǎn)生影響，故如何提高其效用尚需進(jìn)一步研究。

蛋白酶抑制劑阻斷了胰蛋白酶的活化，而胰酶的內(nèi)激活是PEP發(fā)生的關(guān)鍵步驟。這類藥物有加貝酯、肝素、烏司他丁、萘莫司他、硫酸鎂等。甲磺酸萘莫司他是一種低分子量蛋白酶抑制劑，它能夠阻斷胰蛋白酶、激肽緩釋酶、補(bǔ)體成分1、凝血酶等絲氨酸蛋白酶的活化。Park等[31]對608例ERCP患者進(jìn)行的RCT證實(shí)甲磺酸萘莫司他(20 mg或50 mg)對PEP的預(yù)防是有效的，然而，對于PEP的高危患者，加大藥物的劑量沒有顯示出更好的預(yù)防效果。最新的薈萃分析顯示，甲磺酸萘莫司他降低了高危和低?；颊逷EP的發(fā)生率，且輕度和中度PEP的發(fā)生率均有顯著降低，但重度PEP發(fā)生率并無改善，且插管困難及ERCP術(shù)后高淀粉酶血癥發(fā)生率也未下降[32]。肝素、加貝酯、硫酸鎂等的預(yù)防效果尚待進(jìn)一步證實(shí)[33-36]。

硝酸甘油(GTN)對降低Oddi括約肌的壓力、減少其收縮有顯著作用。但是，評估GTN能否降低PEP的相關(guān)臨床試驗(yàn)卻沒有得到一個確切的答案。Chen等[37]的薈萃分析證實(shí)預(yù)防性使用GTN能顯著降低PEP的發(fā)生率但對插管成功率無益。Ding等[38]對12篇RCT的薈萃分析也證實(shí)預(yù)防性使用GTN能降低PEP的發(fā)生率及術(shù)后高淀粉酶血癥，但是GTN對于緩解PEP及幫助插管收效甚微。他們的結(jié)果還顯示，舌下給藥相對于局部用藥、經(jīng)皮給藥及靜脈給藥效果更好，發(fā)生一過性低血壓和頭痛等主要不良反應(yīng)的概率也更小。其他降低Oddi括約肌壓力的藥物如腎上腺素、磷酸二酯酶等的效果仍有待進(jìn)一步證實(shí)[16,39]。

2．機(jī)械預(yù)防：(1)導(dǎo)絲輔助插管：如何在進(jìn)行膽管插管的同時又能降低損傷，減少PEP的發(fā)生是廣泛開展的一項(xiàng)研究。導(dǎo)絲輔助膽管插管已經(jīng)被多次證明能提高膽道插管的成功率，但能否降低PEP的發(fā)生尚待進(jìn)一步證實(shí)。既往的研究證明，導(dǎo)絲輔助插管并未減少PEP的發(fā)生率或增加插管成功率[40]。而最新的臨床試驗(yàn)[41]及薈萃分析[42]卻得到了截然相反的結(jié)論。造成這一差別的可能原因一方面是操作者的技巧，另一方面可能是導(dǎo)絲輔助插管有多種實(shí)施方法。無論如何，就現(xiàn)有的研究來看，導(dǎo)絲輔助插管仍應(yīng)提倡。(2)置入胰管支架：術(shù)中置入臨時胰管支架可有效地避免術(shù)后十二指腸乳頭水腫、Oddi括約肌痙攣導(dǎo)致的胰管引流障礙，促進(jìn)胰液的引流，近年來大量研究著眼于置入胰管支架來預(yù)防PEP。Freeman等[43]教授認(rèn)為對于PEP的高?；颊?，胰管支架應(yīng)該成為一個標(biāo)準(zhǔn)性的預(yù)防措施。一些臨床研究已經(jīng)證實(shí)胰管支架置入能降低高?；颊呋蚴遣骞芾щy、預(yù)切開等操作導(dǎo)致的PEP發(fā)生率和嚴(yán)重程度[44-47]，但如果支架置入失敗，患者發(fā)生PEP的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)反而會增高。所以，需要接受胰管支架植入術(shù)的患者，醫(yī)師的經(jīng)驗(yàn)值及支架的材質(zhì)、內(nèi)徑、長度、形狀等方面都會影響其對PEP的預(yù)防效果[48]。以往的薈萃分析僅說明胰管支架置入對輕、中度或重度PEP有預(yù)防作用，但最新的研究首次闡明了其對不同程度的PEP均有有效的預(yù)防作用，且PEP總的發(fā)生率下降了12%[49]。Afghani等[50]比較了5 F和3 F支架的效果，與3F支架相比，5 F支架對PEP高?；颊叩念A(yù)防作用更好，且不同類型的5F支架預(yù)防效果均比3 F支架好，顯示預(yù)防PEP方面，支架的直徑可能比類型更有意義。盡管置入胰管支架對PEP的預(yù)防作用已得到確切證實(shí)，但仍有諸多問題有待商榷。(3)其他：已知ERCP術(shù)中反復(fù)插管后行針狀刀括約肌切開術(shù)(NKS)會增加PEP發(fā)生的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，但最新研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，插管次數(shù)增加是PEP的危險(xiǎn)因素，但單獨(dú)的NKS不會增加其風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，且經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的醫(yī)師行ERCP還能降低PEP的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)[51]。Yang等[52]的臨床試驗(yàn)證實(shí)內(nèi)鏡下鼻膽管引流(ENBD)顯著降低了術(shù)后高淀粉酶血癥的發(fā)生，并減少了內(nèi)鏡下括約肌切開術(shù)(EST)患者的住院時間，但未顯著降低PEP的發(fā)生率。

參考文獻(xiàn)

[1]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.

[2]Artifon EL, Chu A, Freeman M, et al. A comparison of the consensus and clinical definitions of pancreatitis with a proposal to redefine post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis[J]. Pancreas, 2010, 39(4): 530-535.DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181c306c0.

[3]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. DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045.

[4]Wong LL, Tsai HH. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol, 2014, 5(1): 1-10.DOI: 10.4291/wjgp.v5.i1.1.

[5]Donnellan F, Byrne MF. Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis[J]. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2012, 2012: 796751.DOI: 10.1155/2012/796751.

[6]Ding X, Zhang F, Wang Y. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Surgeon, 2015, 13(4):218-229.DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2014.11.005.

[7]夏焱, 朱玉華,俞繼衛(wèi), 等. ERCP引發(fā)急性胰腺炎的高危因素探討[J].中國內(nèi)鏡雜志, 2004, 10(1): 20-22.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-1989.2004.01.008.

[8]Chen JJ, Wang XM, Liu XQ, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review of clinical trials with a large sample size in the past 10 years[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2014, 19: 26.DOI: 10.1186/2047-783X-19-26.

[9]Zhou W, Li Y, Zhang Q, et al. Risk factors for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a retrospective analysis of 7,168 cases[J]. Pancreatology, 2011, 11(4): 399-405.DOI: 10.1016/S1424-3903(11)80094-3.

[10]Finkelmeier F, Tal A, Ajouaou M, et al. ERCP in elderly patients: increased risk of sedation adverse events but low frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2015, 82(6):1051-1059. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.032.

[11]Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study[J]. Am J Gastroenterol, 2009, 104(1): 31-40.DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2008.5.

[12]Akashi R, Kiyozumi T, Tanaka T, et al. Mechanism of pancreatitis caused by ERCP[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2002, 55(1): 50-54.DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.118964.

[13]Simmons DT, Petersen BT, Gostout CJ, et al. Risk of pancreatitis following endoscopically placed large-bore plastic biliary stents with and without biliary sphincterotomy for management of postoperative bile leaks[J]. Surg Endosc, 2008, 22(6): 1459-1463.DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9643-8.

[14]Kakutani H, Hino S, Ikeda K, et al. Risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis at a tertiary referral center in Japan[J]. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech, 2014, 24(3): 270-273.DOI: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182901461.

[15]Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, et al. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone[J]. Endoscopy, 2002, 34(4): 280-285.DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-23629.

[16]Akshintala VS, Hutfless SM, Colantuoni E, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2013, 38(11-12): 1325-1337.DOI:10.1111/apt.12534.

[17]Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J, et al. European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Endoscopy, 2010, 42(6): 503-515.DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1244208.

[18]Shah T, Zfass A, Schubert ML. Chemoprevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with rectal NSAIDs: does poking both ends justify the means?[J]. Dig Dis Sci, 2015,DOI: 10.1007/s10620-015-3746-1.

[19]Sun HL, Han B, Zhai HP, et al. Rectal NSAIDs for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Surgeon, 2014, 12(3): 141-147.DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2013.10.010.

[20]Li X, Tao LP, Wang CH. Effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-in fl ammatory drugs in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(34): 12322-12329.DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i34.12322.

[21]Shi N, Deng L, Altaf K, et al. Rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. Turk J Gastroenterol, 2015, 26(3): 236-240.DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2015.6000.

[22]Yaghoobi M, Rolland S, Waschke KA, et al. Meta-analysis: rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2013, 38(9): 995-1001.DOI: 10.1111/apt.12488.

[23]Patai A, Solymosi N, Patai AV. Effect of rectal indomethacin for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis depends on difficulties of cannulation: results from a randomized study with sequential biliary intubation[J]. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2015, 49(5): 429-437.DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000168.

[24]Yoshihara T, Horimoto M, Kitamura T, et al. 25 mg versus 50 mg dose of rectal diclofenac for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in Japanese patients: a retrospective study[J]. BMJ Open, 2015, 5(3): e006950.DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006950.

[25]Park SW, Chung MJ, Oh TG, et al. Intramuscular diclofenac for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2015, 47(1): 33-39.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1390743.

[26]Testoni PA. Somatostatin: still a pharmaceutical defense weapon against post-ERCP pancreatitis? A 30-year story[J]. Endoscopy, 2015, 47(5): 393-395.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391658.

[27]Omata F, Deshpande G, Tokuda Y, et al. Meta-analysis: somatostatin or its long-acting analogue, octreotide, for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. J Gastroenterol, 2010, 45(8): 885-895.DOI: 10.1007/s00535-010-0234-4.

[28]Concepción-Martín M, Gómez-Oliva C, Juanes A, et al. Somatostatin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2014, 46(10): 851-856.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377306.

[29]Bai Y, Ren X, Zhang XF, et al. Prophylactic somatostatin can reduce incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter randomized controlled trial[J]. Endoscopy, 2015, 47(5): 415-420.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391227.

[30]Zhao LN, Yu T, Li CQ, et al. Somatostatin administration prior to ERCP is effective in reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients[J]. Exp Ther Med, 2014, 8(2): 509-514.DOI: 10.3892/etm.2014.1733.

[31]Park KT, Kang DH, Choi CW, et al. Is high-dose nafamostat mesilate effective for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, especially in high-risk patients[J]? Pancreas, 2011, 40(8): 1215-1219.DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31822116d5.

[32]Yu G, Li S, Wan R, et al. Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials[J]. Pancreas, 2015, 44(4): 561-569.DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000000310.

[33]Barkay O, Niv E, Santo E, et al. Low-dose heparin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized placebo-controlled trial[J]. Surg Endosc, 2008, 22(9): 1971-1976.DOI: 10.1007/s00464-007-9738-2.

[34]Ung KA, Rydberg L, Modin S, et al. A preventive effect of unfractionated heparin on post-ERCP pancreatitis is suggested by positive effects on laboratory markers[J]. Hepatogastro-enterology, 2011, 58(105): 168-173.

[35]Baron TH, Itoi T. Making sense of meta-analyses on the use of protease inhibitors for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2011, 73(4): 707-709.DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.11.031.

[36]Fluhr G, Mayerle J, Weber E, et al. Pre-study protocol MagPEP: a multicentre randomized controlled trial of magnesium sulphate in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2013, 13: 11.DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-11.

[37]Chen B, Fan T, Wang CH. A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2010, 10: 85.DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-85.

[38]Ding J, Jin X, Pan Y, et al. Glyceryl trinitrate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and improve the rate of cannulation: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials[J]. PLoS One, 2013, 8(10): e75645.DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0075645.

[39]Oh HC, Cheon YK, Cho YD, et al. Use of udenafil is not associated with a reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2011, 74(3): 556-562.DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.047.

[40]Kobayashi G, Fujita N, Imaizumi K, et al. Wire-guided biliary cannulation technique does not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter randomized controlled trial[J]. Dig Endosc, 2013, 25(3): 295-302.DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01372.x.

[41]D′Arpa F, Tutino R, Battaglia EO, et al. Post-ERCP pancreatitis A single center experience and an update on prevention strategies[J]. Ann Ital Chir, 2015, 86(3):234-238.

[42]Tse F, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P, et al. Guide wire-assisted cannulation for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Endoscopy, 2013, 45(8): 605-618.DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1326640.

[43]Freeman ML. Current status of endoscopic stenting of the pancreatic duct as prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 2012, 8(9): 618-620.

[44]Pan XP, Dang T, Meng XM, et al. Clinical study on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic duct stenting[J]. Cell Biochem Biophys, 2011, 61(3): 473-479.DOI: 10.1007/s12013-011-9230-4.

[45]Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, et al., Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2011, 73(2): 275-282.DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039.

[46]Sakai Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Mikata R, et al. Utility of placement of pancreatic duct spontaneous dislodgement stent for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with difficulty in selective biliary cannulation[J]. Hepatogastroenterology, 2011, 58(107-108): 687-693.

[47]Kerdsirichairat T, Attam R, Arain M, et al. Urgent ERCP with pancreatic stent placement or replacement for salvage of post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. Endoscopy, 2014, 46(12): 1085-1094.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377750.

[48]Sakai Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Yokosuka O. Clinical usefulness and current problems of pancreatic duct stenting for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis[J]. World J Clin Cases, 2014, 2(9): 426-431.DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v2.i9.426.

[49]Mazaki T, Mado K, Masuda H, et al. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis[J]. J Gastroenterol, 2014, 49(2): 343-355.DOI: 10.1007/s00535-013-0806-1.

[50]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.DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365701.

[51]Testoni PA, Giussani A, Vailati C, et al. Precut sphincterotomy, repeated cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with bile duct stone disease[J]. Dig Liver Dis, 2011, 43(10): 792-796.DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2011.05.010.

[52]Yang J, Peng JY, Pang EJ, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and cholangitis after repeated clearance of common bile duct stones: experience from a Chinese center[J]. Dig Endosc, 2013, 25(4): 453-458.DOI: 10.1111/den.12013.

(本文編輯：呂芳萍)

DOI:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1674-1935.2016.03.017

通信作者：李兆申，Email: zhaoshen-li@hotmail.com

(收稿日期：2015-09-23)