Is High-Dose Nafamostat Mesilate Effective for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis, Especially in High-Risk Patients?

Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, Yangsan-si, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea.
Pancreas (Impact Factor: 2.96). 07/2011; 40(8):1215-9. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31822116d5
Source: PubMed


Infusion of the protease inhibitor nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) effectively prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis, but only in low-risk groups. This study was performed to evaluate the use of high-dose nafamostat mesilate (50 mg) for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), especially in high-risk groups.
A total of 608 patients who underwent ERCP were included; 13 patients were excluded. Patients were divided into 3 groups: controls (group A), infusion with 20 mg of nafamostat mesilate (group B), or infusion with 50 mg of nafamostat mesilate (group C). The incidence of PEP was analyzed.
The overall incidence of acute pancreatitis was 7.4% (44/595). There was a significant difference in the incidence of PEP with or without nafamostat mesilate (13.0% vs 4.0% and 5.1%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis showed that in low-risk patients, the rate of PEP was significantly different with nafamostat (11.9% vs 2.7% and 4.0%, respectively; P = 0.007). In high-risk patients, the rate of PEP was not significantly different among treatment groups (14.6% vs 5.9% vs 6.9%, respectively; P = 0.108).
Nafamostat mesilate prophylaxis (20 or 50 mg) is effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, the preventive effect of high-dose nafamostat mesilate (50 mg) is not significant in high-risk patients.

15 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article reviews the most recent literature with significant findings pertaining to the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Despite several promising reports of pharmacologic agents that have demonstrated the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secretin, there are currently no universally accepted agents for use in high-risk patients. The greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demonstrated through advancements in endoscopic techniques such as pancreatic duct stenting and dye-free guidewire cannulation. Pancreatitis requiring hospitalization is the most common complication of ERCP. Numerous pharmaceutical and procedure related interventions have been studied in attempts to prevent this complication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant. The most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and identification of risk factors prior to procedure.
    Current opinion in gastroenterology 03/2012; 28(3):280-6. DOI:10.1097/MOG.0b013e3283528e68 · 4.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: One unresolved issue of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which occurs in up to 40% of patients. Identification of risk factors for PEP is especially important in the field of ERCP practice because it may assist physicians in taking protective measures in situations with high risk. A decade ago, Freeman et al meticulously evaluated a large number of potentially relevant risk factors for PEP, which can be divided into patient-related and procedure-related issues. In this commentary, we summarize this classic article and reevaluate the risk factors for PEP from the current point of view. This is followed by assessment of strategies for prevention of PEP that can be divided into mechanical and pharmacologic methods.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 02/2013; 19(5):631-7. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i5.631 · 2.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our aim was to investigate the efficacy of continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) in treating severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). A literature search was performed using PubMed (1992-present), and all studies investigating the efficacy of CVVH in treating SAP were included. Four comparative studies and seven case series comprising a total of 354 patients were included. The overall mortality rate of patients receiving CVVH was 20% (55/275). A decreased mortality rate and decreased serum cytokine levels were reported in the CVVH groups in only two studies. The starting time point, substitution fluid flow rate, filter membrane type, hemofilter change interval, anticoagulation, and sustaining times of CVVH varied among the studies, and the impact of these parameters on the efficacy of CVVH was poorly reported. High-volume CVVH, when started early, was demonstrated to be more effective in eliminating cytokines in only one study. After the application of CVVH, the patient conditions started to improve between the 6th and 72nd hours. In conclusion, no solid clinical evidence has proven the efficacy of CVVH in treating SAP. High-volume CVVH that is started early and sustained for at least 72 h may be adopted to investigate the efficacy of CVVH for treating SAP.
    Artificial Organs 03/2013; 37(7). DOI:10.1111/aor.12051 · 2.05 Impact Factor
Show more