RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A new preprocedural predictive risk model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The SuPER model
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.08.11.24311807
DO 10.1101/2024.08.11.24311807
A1 Sugimoto, Mitsuru
A1 Takagi, Tadayuki
A1 Suzuki, Tomohiro
A1 Shimizu, Hiroshi
A1 Shibukawa, Goro
A1 Nakajima, Yuki
A1 Takeda, Yutaro
A1 Noguchi, Yuki
A1 Kobayashi, Reiko
A1 Imamura, Hidemichi
A1 Asama, Hiroyuki
A1 Konno, Naoki
A1 Waragai, Yuichi
A1 Akatsuka, Hidenobu
A1 Suzuki, Rei
A1 Hikichi, Takuto
A1 Ohira, Hiromasa
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/08/11/2024.08.11.24311807.abstract
AB Background Post–endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.Methods This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established by logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.Results In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: -2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the use of pancreatic duct procedures. The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients (≤ 0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1 to 3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4 to 7 points). In the validation cohort, the C-statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent from intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8-6.3, P < 0.01).Conclusions The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNone.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Fukushima Medical University (Number 2453). The analysis used anonymous clinical data obtained after all the participants agreed to treatment by written consent, so patients were not required to give informed consent for the study. The details of the study can be found on the homepage of Fukushima Medical University.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes