PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11560786

Pancreas Divisum.

Abstract

We offer endoscopic therapy for pancreas divisum only in patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis or chronic pancreatitis, based on studies delineated in this article, which results in response rates of 80% and 50% respectively. We do not offer endoscopic therapy for patients with chronic abdominal pain in the absence of morphologic abnormalities in the pancreatic duct or parenchyma or normal laboratory study results. It has been our experience that the success rate for endoscopic cannulation and therapy directed at the minor papilla in patients with symptomatic pancreas divisum is improved when the procedure is performed with primary intent to treat in patients who have a pre-existing diagnosis of pancreas divisum, as opposed to patients who undergo diagnostic ERCP for idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis and are diagnosed with pancreas divisum during the procedure. We cannulate the minor papilla with ultratapered 3-F catheters and 0.018-in soft wires. It is our opinion that minor papilla sphincterotomy offers advantages over chronic stent therapy in treating patients with pancreas divisum. Although both techniques have proven efficacy, chronic stenting requires repeated procedures and results in a high incidence of stent-induced chronic duct changes, both of which can be avoided by performing a minor papillotomy. We use an ultratapered papillotome with a 20-mm monofilament cutting wire and typically use blended current. The papillotomy is extended to ablate the mucosal mound of the minor papilla typically in a 2-o'clock direction for a distance between 4 and 8 mm, depending on the patient's anatomy. Following minor papillotomy, we place temporary 5-F pancreatic duct stents to reduce the incidence of postprocedural pancreatitis, which has been demonstrated in pancreatic duct sphincterotomy of the major papilla. These stents usually migrate out after 24 to 72 hours following the procedure. We offer surgical sphincteroplasty to patients in whom minor papillotomy cannot be performed or whose disease relapses after successful endoscopic therapy.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Asif Khalid, Adam Slivka. 2001. Pancreas Divisum.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-001-0004-8

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗