ライフサイエンスコーパス: ERCP

1 ERCP after Roux-en-Y altered small bowel anatomy is feas

2 ERCP approaches are no longer appropriate in that contex

3 ERCP at the level of the intact papilla in long limb Rou

4 ERCP images were evaluated for the presence of bile duct

5 ERCP is the most frequently used modality for the diagno

6 ERCP showed stricture of distal common bile duct in 12 p

7 ERCP was performed within 24 hours after MRC.

8 13018 ERCPs were performed by 85 endoscopists (March 2007 - Ma

9 ive complication registrations, leaving 1931 ERCP procedures to be analyzed.

10 For these patients, 4 VLCs and 2 ERCP/ES were performed.

11 erall competence after completing 180 to 200 ERCPs.

12 Between 2009 and 2011, 2185 ERCPs were performed at the Karolinska University Hospit

13 After ERCP, patients were randomized 2:1 to sphincterotomy (n

14 38.0% of patients after MRCP and 68.1% after ERCP.

15 ravenous magnesium sulphate before and after ERCP reduces the incidence and the severity of post-ERCP

16 actice patterns for performance of CCY after ERCP for choledocholithiasis using data from 3 large sta

17 r limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights.

18 ) or placebo 60 min before and 6 hours after ERCP.

19 g suppository of glycerin immediately after ERCP, without placement of a pancreatic stent.

20 al indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP.

21 ceived rectal indometacin, immediately after ERCP.

22 ese patients for signs of pancreatitis after ERCP.

23 s, we found that CCY was not performed after ERCP for almost half of the cases.

24 All ERCP-procedures were also registered in the Swedish regi

25 complications of E or PD had ductal anatomy (ERCP/MRCP) which predicted failure because of significan

26 at presentation, blood test results, EUS and ERCP findings, and clinical manifestations during the fo

27 re the most common pancreatic malignancy and ERCP, as well as EUS can identify and sample the solid a

28 MRCP and ERCP images were read centrally by 3 radiologists and 2

29 ed to be temporally associated with MRCP and ERCP, respectively.

30 e Swedish registry for gallstone surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) and correlations between the grading sys

31 -day follow-up of both gallstone surgery and ERCP is mandatory, as is an additional 6-month follow-up

32 l quality registry for gallstone surgery and ERCP, serving as a base for audit of gallstone disease t

33 ormalities on endoscopic ultrasonography and ERCP and were referred for pancreatectomy.

34 ging studies (endoscopic ultrasonography and ERCP) can be used to identify high-risk patients who hav

35 Registrations of all cholecystectomies and ERCPs are performed online by the surgeon or endoscopist

36 ete pancreatic duct obstruction was found ar ERCP (n = 7).

37 LECBD is as effective as ERCP in clearing the common bile duct of stones.

38 es, laparoscopic or conventional, as well as ERCP in a population-based setting.

39 At ERCP, 42 segments in 19 patients were not visualized.

40 ent, MRC demonstrated CBD stones not seen at ERCP, consistent with probable passage.

41 in 15 of 17 patients found to have stones at ERCP.

42 th associated multiple biliary strictures at ERCP.

43 and then compared the findings with those at ERCP.

44 performed in 37 consecutive patients because ERCP was unsuccessful (n = 20), postsurgical biliary-ent

45 in patients without contraindications before ERCP.

46 ) of rectal indometacin within 30 min before ERCP.

47 Very good correlation between ERCP and MRCP findings was demonstrated.

48 s were found to have CBD stones confirmed by ERCP.

49 Pancreatic endotherapy by ERCP for the treatment of biliary strictures and chronic

50 Photodynamic therapy guided by ERCP may provide improved palliation from biliary obstru

51 f obstruction to not longer than 48 hours by ERCP + ES decreased morbidity.

52 ative endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), laparoscopic exploration of the common bile duct

53 se on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP).

54 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) under procedu

55 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and stent placement, and a high number of previous

56 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) between March 26, 2008, and October 28, 2009.

57 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) by excluding choledocholithiasis in patients with

58 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can result in failure of common bile duct (CBD) st

59 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) causes pancreatic inflammation, and studied the ef

60 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) continues to mature.

61 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cytology, are problematic because of a substantial

62 oscopic Retrograde CholangioPancreatography (ERCP) findings as applicable.

63 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the detection of CBD stones in all patients.

64 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 59 patients with gallstone, other benign diseas

65 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in these patients, avoiding rescue surgery.

66 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically challenging endoscopic procedure,

67 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (

68 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MR

69 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

70 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

71 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were compared with the MR cholangiograms obtained

72 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with manometry and sphincterotomy.

73 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with or without sphincterotomy and/or stent placem

74 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with stone extraction reduces recurrent biliary ev

75 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 19 patients; and percutaneous transhepatic cholan

76 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a rate of 1.0%.

77 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials.

78 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), clinical examination, and/or histologic analysis

79 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), performed within 30 days.

80 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in substantial morbidity and occasional

81 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sphincterotomy, and common bile duct (CBD) cleara

82 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), spiral computed tomography, and serum carcinoembr

83 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the most commonly performed procedure for cholang

84 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

85 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

86 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

87 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

88 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

89 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

90 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

91 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

92 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

93 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

94 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

95 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

96 atography with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC) vs laparoscopic common bile duct exploration wi

97 nto an observational study with conventional ERCP managemeny.

98 f alternative imaging modalities, diagnostic ERCP is rarely indicated.

99 eatment failure rates (failure of diagnostic ERCP and IOC, complications of ERCP and endoscopic sphin

100 Of the 780 patients who underwent diagnostic ERCP, pancreatitis developed in 26 patients (3.3%).

101 depicted the biliary tract as clearly as did ERCP (n = 9).

102 The effectiveness of early ERCP +/- ES in this setting is controversial.

103 fety during procedural sedation for elective ERCP/EUS by reducing the frequency of hypoxemia, severe

104 If no stone was found by EUS, ERCP would not be performed and patients were followed-u

105 hen a CBD stone was disclosed by linear EUS, ERCP with stone extraction was performed.

106 ere assessed, and 236 patients had evaluable ERCPs.

107 After failed ERCP, MRCP delineated the pancreaticobiliary tract and h

108 by EUS, nine had successful ERCP, one failed ERCP (later treated successfully by surgical interventio

109 Patients who failed ERCP were referred for surgical intervention.

110 elated with histopathology/surgical findings/ERCP findings as applicable.

111 urgent cholecystectomy, and 12.0% following ERCP.

112 For ERCP to be the optimal initial test strategy, a prevalen

113 A total of 7445 patients were included for ERCP and 1690 for PTBD.

114 adult patients with a medical indication for ERCP are to be randomized to receive either 4930 mg magn

115 -classification is a novel grading scale for ERCP-complexity.

116 launches a new complexity grading scale for ERCP-the H.O.U.S.E.-classification.

117 centers, a new complexity grading system for ERCP is warranted.

118 In the postoperative ERCP group, ERCP was necessary in only 7 of 29 patients (24%).

119 %; it was 8.2% and 17.1% in patients who had ERCP and no intervention, respectively (P < .001).

120 11.3 and 10.1 months in the patients who had ERCP and no intervention, respectively.

121 ds used to define and evaluate competence in ERCP could also be used to assess competence in other me

122 ater is an accepted measure of competence in ERCP training and practice, yet prior studies focused on

123 t failure rate, and significant reduction in ERCP use compared with routine preoperative ERCP.

124 examine the literature over the last year in ERCP and EUS as they apply to specific pancreatic disord

125 25-310) in the laparoscopic group (including ERCPs for failed LECBD) compared with 105 min (range 60-

126 nine hundred fifty-four of those were index-ERCPs.

127 nation) versus 793.17 US dollars for initial ERCP.

128 When analyzed by type of malignant neoplasm, ERCP was associated with a lower rate of adverse events

129 ich no CBD stones were found, and one normal ERCP.

130 MRCP may obviate ERCP, particularly in patients who cannot undergo ERCP o

131 n of pancreaticobiliary disease and obviates ERCP in some patients.

132 duct abnormalities were observed in 60.2% of ERCP images.

133 Classifications of the complexity of ERCP have been presented, but do not include modern endo

134 alization is the most common complication of ERCP.

135 of diagnostic ERCP and IOC, complications of ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy, and complications of

136 completing specific technical components of ERCP and an overall grading of competence as judged by t

137 llars for initial MRC (including the cost of ERCP following a negative MRC examination) versus 793.17

138 Clinical and radiographic features of ERCP-related periduodenal perforations can be used to st

139 ble of effectively reducing the incidence of ERCP-induced pancreatitis has found its way into clinica

140 nic pancreatitis was established by means of ERCP findings.

141 from 5.3% to 1.5% (P < .001), while rates of ERCP+LC increased from 52.8% to 85.7% (P < .001).

142 On recognition of ERCP as a key risk factor for infection, targeted patien

143 opic ultrasonography complements the role of ERCP and may provide a tissue diagnosis through fine-nee

144 ducts with a quality that approaches that of ERCP.

145 e pancreatitis with regards to the timing of ERCP and cholecystectomy as well as management of pancre

146 The role and timing of ERCP in mild to moderate gallstone pancreatitis remains

147 ain study inclusion criteria were (a) use of ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)

148 The use of ERCP to guide selective placement of pancreatic sphincte

149 The use of ERCP, intraoperative cholangiography, endoscopic ultraso

150 ones, and can prevent the unnecessary use of ERCP.

151 The mean number of ERCPs to achieve resolution was lower for cSEMS (2.14) v

152 C and to evaluate features of PSC disease on ERCP in order to be able to manage this disease better.

153 nstrates that the most common PSC finding on ERCP is involvement of both the extrahepatic and intrahe

154 Findings on ERCP ranged from mild and focal side-branch duct irregul

155 tients did not have bile duct involvement on ERCP, and their disease was diagnosed by liver biopsy as

156 lization on CTCP images was equal to that on ERCP images in 35 segments, superior in nine, and signif

157 4-detector CT within 2 months of MRCP and/or ERCP.

158 reated with empirical cholecystectomy and/or ERCP/ES in cases of previous cholecystectomy.

159 dollars with MRC versus 623.25 US dollars or ERCP.

160 rage cost per correct diagnosis using MRC or ERCP as the initial testing strategy for the diagnosis o

161 efit to the length of stay LCBDE+LC has over ERCP+LC.

162 and the potential benefits of LCBDE+LC over ERCP+LC for managing choledocholithiasis, if current tre

163 it a technique that may take precedence over ERCP in ambiguous cases.

164 Overall ERCP success rate was 73 % for DBE and 75 % for SBE (P =

165 opic retrograde cholangio-pancreatiographic (ERCP) exam; even prior images had evidence of common bil

166 grade cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP) has been disappointing.

167 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the management

168 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

169 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) provides therapy for many pancreatic disorders, in

170 were reviewed for the following parameters: ERCP findings, clinical presentation of perforation, dia

171 single-balloon enteroscope (SBE) to perform ERCP in Roux-en-Y patients.

172 Performing ERCP may be safer in the elderly.

173 Competence in performing ERCP and the learning curve for achieving competence are

174 Post-ERCP amylase value was found significantly lower in the

175 Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%)

176 Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 18 (6%) of 305 high-risk p

177 Post-ERCP pancreatitis was also less frequent in average-risk

178 Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as the presence of new upp

179 stenting protects significantly against post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic sphincter

180 ed the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory

181 technique in terms of hospital stay and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia.

182 lications of biliary sphincterotomy are post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as acute or delayed hemorrhag

183 The incidence of clinical post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperlipasemia, pain levels, use of a

184 nts with an elevated risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis were assigned to receive 100 mg of rec

185 r two minor risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

186 ct differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis) and (ii) success of CBD clearance.

187 assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal ind

188 Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly red

189 there was no significance difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis between EST and EPBD.

190 tes of overall complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis.

191 The average cost of managing post-ERCP-related complications among patients with PSC was 2

192 primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal

193 nflicting reports about risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

194 l indomethacin reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients at high risk of develop

195 greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demons

196 domethacin in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

197 addition, no significant difference of post-ERCP pancreatitis was found between EST and EPBD groups

198 ients reduced the overall occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis without increasing risk of bleeding.

199 proving its safety in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

200 duces the incidence and the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

201 ucing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

202 nterventions that can lower the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

203 ly to be effective in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

204 rimary outcome was overall ocurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

205 ere calculated to prevent an episode of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

206 ce (C57BL/6) to create a mouse model of post-ERCP pancreatitis; some mice were given intraperitoneal

207 A complementary mouse model of post-ERCP-pancreatitis also induced pancreatic NF-kappaB sign

208 Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 47 (4%) of 1297 patients a

209 ntial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a variety of patients.

210 nhibitors might be developed to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients.

211 CP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

212 e in only high-risk patients to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

213 e most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and iden

214 is found to be effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, this inexpensive agent with limited a

215 The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdomi

216 If one postoperative ERCP failed, the procedure was repeated until the common

217 ion of the common bile duct or postoperative ERCP.

218 e common bile duct (LECBD), or postoperative ERCP.

219 P and 29 patients to selective postoperative ERCP (1 patient refused).

220 without cholangitis, selective postoperative ERCP and CBD stone extraction is associated with a short

221 cholecystectomy with selective postoperative ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy only if a CBD stone w

222 .7 days) than in the selective postoperative ERCP group (9.0 days).

223 Selective postoperative ERCP, performed only if a CBD stone is seen on intraoper

224 RCP group ($9,426) than in the postoperative ERCP group ($7,798).

225 105 min (range 60-255) in the postoperative ERCP group (p = 0.1, 95% CI for difference -5 to 40).

226 In the postoperative ERCP group, ERCP was necessary in only 7 of 29 patients

227 randomised to LECBD and 40 to postoperative ERCP.

228 Six patients underwent postoperative ERCP, three for the removal of retained CBD stones (0.9%

229 nder, history of recurrent pancreatitis, pre-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and difficult or failed cannulatio

230 common bile duct stones during preoperative ERCP in 92.3% (36/39) of the patients.

231 iately selecting candidates for preoperative ERCP and sparing others the need for an endoscopic proce

232 The role of preoperative ERCP in patients with jaundice secondary to pancreatic c

233 ents were randomized to routine preoperative ERCP and 29 patients to selective postoperative ERCP (1

234 re randomly assigned to routine preoperative ERCP followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparo

235 ificantly longer in the routine preoperative ERCP group (11.7 days) than in the selective postoperati

236 Routine preoperative ERCP identifies persisting CBD stones but carries risks

237 ERCP use compared with routine preoperative ERCP.

238 an total cost was higher in the preoperative ERCP group ($9,426) than in the postoperative ERCP group

239 erformed in all patients in the preoperative ERCP group.

240 rograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCPs) to achieve resolution.

241 By protocol, ERCP was performed in all patients in the preoperative E

242 02 received no intervention and 317 received ERCP.

243 or the diagnosis of pancreas divisum remains ERCP and sphincterotomy is highly effective in the treat

244 23%-45%) in the sham group underwent repeat ERCP interventions (P = .22).

245 either conservative treatment and selective ERCP +/- ES after 48 hours (control group, 31 patients)

246 pancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomies (ERCP/ES) in patients who had undergone previous cholecys

247 e for CBD stones by EUS, nine had successful ERCP, one failed ERCP (later treated successfully by sur

248 In summary, ERCP and EUS are important tools for the management of b

249 These findings do not support ERCP and sphincterotomy for these patients.

250 nitial conservative treatment and systematic ERCP +/- ES within 48 hours if obstruction persisted 24

251 The ERCP Quality Network is a unique prospective database of

252 p compared with 3.5 days (range 1-11) in the ERCP group (p = 0.0001, 95% CI 1-2).

253 s of recurrence for 1, 2, and 5 years in the ERCP group were 5.2%, 7.4%, and 11.1%, compared with 11.

254 laparoscopic group compared with 93% in the ERCP group.

255 creatic and biliary ducts as depicted on the ERCP and MRCP images.

256 Data were collected prior to the ERCP, at the time of the procedure, and 24-72 hours afte

257 tients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP at Taleghani hospital in Tehran between 2008 and 20

258 ctive analysis of 95 consecutive therapeutic ERCP procedures was performed to define and compare succ

259 ding patients with negative ERC, therapeutic ERCP is beneficial and safe for patients present with hi

260 However, therapeutic ERCP has been bolstered by advances such as fully covere

261 ter identify patients in need of therapeutic ERCP.

262 of choledocholithiasis requiring therapeutic ERCP.

263 n conclusion, MRC has comparable accuracy to ERCP and results in cost savings when used as the initia

264 particularly in patients who cannot undergo ERCP or in whom ERCP has been unsuccessful.

265 ced helical CT immediately before undergoing ERCP.

266 ominal pain after cholecystectomy undergoing ERCP with manometry, sphincterotomy vs sham did not redu

267 ible patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (with a compu

268 e medical record of every patient undergoing ERCP 2009-2011 at the Karolinska University Hospital was

269 o administer propofol to patients undergoing ERCP and other endoscopic procedures.

270 trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2

271 on-related incidents) in patients undergoing ERCP procedures under propofol deep sedation.

272 tolerated technique for patients undergoing ERCP procedures, although there is a scarcity of publica

273 ia for a select group of patients undergoing ERCP procedures.

274 spective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP that included low-risk patients and patients with m

275 tal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis.

276 led study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP panc

277 s, 7 asymptomatic carriers who had undergone ERCP, and 1 additional patient who had been hospitalized

278 disobstructed spontaneously and 14 underwent ERCP within 48 hours from the onset of symptoms; impacte

279 nts underwent MRCP and 54 patients underwent ERCP (21 patients underwent both).

280 urs; 3 of the remaining 9 patients underwent ERCP +/- ES and none had impacted stones.

281 Group 1 patients underwent ERCP and clearance of common bile duct stones; group 2 p

282 A total of 3305 patients underwent ERCP in our hospital between October 2009 and September

283 of RG1068 and repeat MRCP and then underwent ERCP within 30 days; they were followed up for 30 days.

284 ogic findings for the patients who underwent ERCP and intraoperative cholangiography were analyzed.

285 cohort study of 4017 patients who underwent ERCP at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,

286 Of the patients who underwent ERCP for choledocholithiasis, 41.2% underwent early CCY,

287 lized with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP.

288 ve cholangiography (IOC), avoids unnecessary ERCP but risks unsuccessful stone extraction.

289 The accuracy of MRCP was evaluated using ERCP as the standard.

290 patients who cannot undergo ERCP or in whom ERCP has been unsuccessful.

291 gnosis, and, thus, the risks associated with ERCP can be avoided.

292 lication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant.

293 when this imagining method is combined with ERCP and additional tests.

294 109 segments were used to compare CTCP with ERCP.

295 e between the number of segments missed with ERCP and the number missed with CTCP: nine and three of

296 standard results, (d) prospective study with ERCP or MRCP performed after subject recruitment into th

297 for patients treated with LCBDE+LC than with ERCP+LC (3.5 vs 4.0 days; P < .001).

298 ed with LCBDE+LC than for those treated with ERCP+LC (3.0 vs 4.0 days; P < .001).

299 ur analysis, 36048 (96.9%) were treated with ERCP+LC and 1159 (3.1%) were treated with LCBDE+LC.

300 The mean (SD) age of patients treated with ERCP+LC was 50.7 (21.1) years and was 51.9 (20.9) years