急性胆石性胰腺炎的早期常规内镜逆行胰胆管造影术策略与早期保守治疗策略比较

Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis.

作者信息

Tse Frances, Yuan Yuhong

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 May 16;2012(5):CD009779. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009779.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The role and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in acute gallstone pancreatitis remains controversial. A number of clinical trials and meta-analyses have provided conflicting evidence.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical effectiveness and safety of the early routine ERCP strategy compared to the early conservative management with or without selective use of ERCP strategy, based on all important, clinically relevant and standardized outcomes including mortality, local and systemic complications as defined by the Atlanta Classification (Bradley 1993) and by authors of the primary study, and ERCP-related complications in unselected patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS databases and major conference proceedings up to January 2012, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs comparing the early routine ERCP strategy versus the early conservative management with or without selective use of ERCP strategy in patients with suspected acute gallstone pancreatitis. We included studies in which the population with acute gallstone pancreatitis was a subgroup within a larger group of patients. We only included studies involving only a selected subgroup of patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis (actual severe pancreatitis) in subgroup analyses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test and I² statistic. To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to predicted severity of pancreatitis, cholangitis, biliary obstruction, time to ERCP in routine ERCP strategy, use of selective ERCP in conservative management strategy, and risk of bias. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed versus random-effects), and per-protocol analysis. We performed influence analysis by exclusion of each study.

MAIN RESULTS

Five RCTs comprising 644 participants were included in the main analyses. Two additional RCTs, comprising only patients with actual severe acute gallstone pancreatitis, were included only in subgroup analyses. There was statistical heterogeneity among trials for mortality, but not for other outcomes. In unselected patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis, there were no statistically significant differences between the two strategies in mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.03), local and systemic complications as defined by the Atlanta Classification (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.43; and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.11 respectively) and by authors of the primary study (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.26; and RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.09 respectively). The results were robust to sensitivity and influence analyses except for systemic complications as defined by the Atlanta Classification. There was no evidence to suggest that the results were dependent on predicted severity of pancreatitis. Among trials that included patients with cholangitis, the early routine ERCP strategy significantly reduced mortality (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.68), local and systemic complications as defined by the Atlanta Classification (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.99; and RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.78 respectively) and by authors of the primary study (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; and RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.82 respectively). Among trials that included patients with biliary obstruction, the early routine ERCP strategy was associated with a significant reduction in local complications as defined by authors of the primary study (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.91), and a non-significant trend towards reduction of local and systemic complications as defined by the Atlanta Classification (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; and RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.02 respectively) and systemic complications as defined by authors of the primary study (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01). ERCP complications were infrequent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis, there is no evidence that early routine ERCP significantly affects mortality, and local or systemic complications of pancreatitis, regardless of predicted severity. Our results, however, provide support for current recommendations that early ERCP should be considered in patients with co-existing cholangitis or biliary obstruction.

摘要

背景

内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)在急性胆源性胰腺炎中的作用及时机仍存在争议。多项临床试验和荟萃分析提供了相互矛盾的证据。

目的

基于包括死亡率、根据亚特兰大分类法(布拉德利,1993年)及主要研究作者所定义的局部和全身并发症,以及未选择的急性胆源性胰腺炎患者的ERCP相关并发症等所有重要、临床相关且标准化的结局,系统评价随机对照试验(RCT)中关于早期常规ERCP策略与早期保守治疗(无论是否选择性使用ERCP策略)相比的临床有效性和安全性的证据。

检索方法

我们检索了截至2012年1月的Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、拉丁美洲和加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)以及主要会议论文集,使用Cochrane上消化道和胰腺疾病模型,无语言限制。

选择标准

RCT比较早期常规ERCP策略与早期保守治疗(无论是否选择性使用ERCP策略)在疑似急性胆源性胰腺炎患者中的疗效。我们纳入了急性胆源性胰腺炎患者为更大患者群体中的一个亚组的研究。在亚组分析中,我们仅纳入仅涉及急性胆源性胰腺炎特定亚组患者(实际为重症胰腺炎)的研究。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立进行研究选择、数据提取和方法学质量评估。使用意向性分析和随机效应模型,我们合并二分数据以获得风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)。我们使用卡方检验和I²统计量评估异质性。为探究异质性来源,我们根据预测的胰腺炎严重程度、胆管炎、胆道梗阻、常规ERCP策略中进行ERCP的时间、保守治疗策略中选择性ERCP的使用以及偏倚风险进行了先验亚组分析。为评估结果的稳健性,我们使用不同的汇总统计量(RR与比值比(OR))和荟萃分析模型(固定效应与随机效应)进行敏感性分析,并进行符合方案分析。我们通过排除每项研究进行影响分析。

主要结果

主要分析纳入了5项RCT,共644名参与者。另外2项仅包括实际重症急性胆源性胰腺炎患者的RCT仅纳入亚组分析。各试验间死亡率存在统计学异质性,但其他结局无统计学异质性。在未选择的急性胆源性胰腺炎患者中,两种策略在死亡率(RR 0.74,95% CI 0.18至3.03)、根据亚特兰大分类法定义的局部和全身并发症(RR 0.86,95% CI 0.52至1.43;以及RR 0.59,95% CI 0.31至1.11)以及主要研究作者所定义的局部和全身并发症(RR 0.80,95% CI 0.51至1.26;以及RR 0.76,95% CI 0.53至1.09)方面均无统计学显著差异。除根据亚特兰大分类法定义的全身并发症外,结果对敏感性和影响分析具有稳健性。没有证据表明结果取决于预测的胰腺炎严重程度。在纳入胆管炎患者的试验中,早期常规ERCP策略显著降低了死亡率(RR 0.20,95% CI 0.06至0.68)、根据亚特兰大分类法定义的局部和全身并发症(RR 0.45,95% CI 0.20至0.99;以及RR 0.37,95% CI 0.18至0.78)以及主要研究作者所定义的局部和全身并发症(RR 0.50,95% CI 0.29至0.87;以及RR 0.41,95% CI 0.21至0.82)。在纳入胆道梗阻患者的试验中,早期常规ERCP策略与主要研究作者所定义的局部并发症显著减少相关(RR 0.54,95% CI 0.32至0.91),并且在根据亚特兰大分类法定义的局部和全身并发症(RR 0.53,95% CI 0.26至1.07;以及RR 0.56,95% CI 0.30至1.02)以及主要研究作者所定义的全身并发症(RR 0.59,95% CI 0.3五至1.01)方面有降低趋势但无统计学显著差异。ERCP并发症不常见。

作者结论

在急性胆源性胰腺炎患者中,没有证据表明早期常规ERCP会显著影响死亡率以及胰腺炎的局部或全身并发症,无论预测的严重程度如何。然而,我们的结果支持当前的建议,即对于合并胆管炎或胆道梗阻的患者应考虑早期ERCP。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索