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: 2.95). 07/2011; 40(8):1215-9. DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e31822116d5
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

  • [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; · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of ERCP. Several meta-analyses have examined the effects of protease inhibitors (gabexate mesilate, ulinastatin, and nafamostat mesilate) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on post-ERCP pancreatitis, but the results have been confusing. Since the previous meta-analysis, several new studies have been published on this topic. To provide an updated quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials for patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Twenty-six articles were included in this meta-analysis. Nafamostat mesilate (summary RR = 0.41; 95 %CI 0.28-0.59; n = 4 studies) and NSAIDs (summary RR = 0.58; 95 %CI = 0.44-0.76; n = 7 studies) were associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. However, gabexate mesilate (summary RR = 0.64; 95 %CI = 0.36-1.13; n = 6 studies) and ulinastatin (summary RR = 0.65; 95 %CI = 0.33-1.30; n = 2 studies) were not associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. This is the first meta-analysis to compare the effects of three protease inhibitors. Solid evidence supports the use of nafamostat mesilate and NSAIDs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.
    Journal of Gastroenterology 05/2013; · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.
    Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America 10/2013; 23(4):769-786.