Advertisement

Serum lipase as a biomarker for early prediction and diagnosis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

  • Yu Zhang
  • Xiaoling Ye
  • Xinyue Wan
  • Tao DengEmail author
Original Article
  • 71 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Lipase is one of the diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis; however, the value of serum lipase in the early prediction and diagnosis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis remains controversial.

Aims

We evaluate the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities for early prediction of postoperative pancreatitis (PEP) and compare the 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities in the diagnosis of PEP.

Methods

Clinical information of patients who underwent ERCP from January 2017 to December 2018 at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for 3-h and 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities to evaluate predictive and diagnostic values, respectively.

Results

A total of 498 cases with ERCP were finally enrolled, in which 36 cases of PEP were confirmed. ROC curves for 3-h post-ERCP amylase and lipase activities depicted areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.88 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.82–0.93) and 0.90 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.86–0.93), respectively. The difference showed no significance using Z test (Z = 0.69, P > 0.05). AUCs for 24-h amylase and lipase activities were 0.83 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.77–0.89) and 0.94 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.90–0.99), respectively, and the difference was significant (Z = 3.04, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

For early prediction of PEP, 3-h post-ERCP serum lipase activity is at least as good as that of amylase. For diagnosis of PEP, 24-h post-ERCP serum lipase is a much better indicator than that of amylase. Together, this study suggests that serum lipase should be given priority in the early prediction and diagnosis of PEP.

Keywords

Amylase Diagnosing Lipase Pancreatitis Post-ERCP ROC 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the patients involved in this study and the support from the Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. We thank many online databases and resources for providing data and tools.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

References

  1. 1.
    Tryliskyy Y, Bryce GJ (2018) Post-ERCP pancreatitis: pathophysiology, early identification and risk stratification. Adv Clin Exp Med 27:149–154.  https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/66773 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E et al (2015) Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 81:143–149.e9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parekh PJ, Majithia R, Sikka SK, Baron TH (2017) The “scope” of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Mayo Clin Proc 92:434–448.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.10.028 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shih HY, Hsu WH, Kuo CH (2019) Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 35:195–201.  https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.12040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RCG, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37:383–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(91)70740-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS, Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group (2013) Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62:102–111.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302779 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Artifon EL, Chu A, Freeman M et al (2010) A comparison of the consensus and clinical definitions of pancreatitis with a proposal to redefine post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Pancreas 2010 39:530–535.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0b013e3181c306c0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mann DV, Kalu P, Foulds S, Edwards R, Glazer G (2001) Neutrophil activation and hyperamylasaemia after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: potential role for the leukocyte in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. Endoscopy 33:448–453.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-14260 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freeman ML, Guda NM (2004) Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 59:845–864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(04)00353-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Testoni PA, Caporuscio S, Bagnolo F, Lella F (1999) Twenty-four-hour serum amylase predicting pancreatic reaction after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy 31:131–136.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-1999-13660 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Testoni PA, Bagnolo F, Caporuscio S, Lella F (1998) Serum amylase measured four hours after endoscopic sphincterotomy is a reliable predictor of postprocedure pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 94:1235–1241.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01072.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomas PR, Sengupta S (2001) Prediction of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography by the 4-h post procedure amylase level. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 16:923–926.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1746.2001.02547.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G et al (2007) Relationship between post-ERCP pancreatitis and the change of serum amylase level after the procedure. World J Gastroenterol 13:3855–3860CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sutton VR, Hong MK, Thomas PR (2011) Using the 4-hour post-ERCP amylase level to predict post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 12:372–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee YK, Yang MJ, Kim SS, Noh CK, Cho HJ, Lim SG, Hwang JC, Yoo BM, Kim JH (2017) Prediction of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using 4-hour post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography serum amylase and lipase levels. J Korean Med Sci 32:1814–1819.  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1814 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Minakari M, Sebghatollahi V, Sattari M, Fahami E (2018) Serum amylase and lipase levels for prediction of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. J Res Med Sci 23:54.  https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.JRMS_1100_17 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Papachristos A, Howard T, Thomson BN, Thomas PR (2016) Predicting post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using the 4-h serum lipase level. ANZ J Surg 88:82–86.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13665 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, Chak A, Mosler P, Higgins PD, Hayward RA, Romagnuolo J, Elta GH, Sherman S, Waljee AK, Repaka A, Atkinson MR, Cote GA, Kwon RS, McHenry L, Piraka CR, Wamsteker EJ, Watkins JL, Korsnes SJ, Schmidt SE, Turner SM, Nicholson S, Fogel EL, U.S. Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE) (2012) A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 366:1414–1422.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1111103 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Akbar A, Abu Dayyeh BK, Baron TH, Wang Z, Altayar O, Murad MH (2013) Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are superior to pancreatic duct stents in preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11:778–783.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.043 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sun HL, Han B, Zhai HP, Cheng XH, Ma K (2014) Rectal NSAIDs for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surgeon 12:141–147.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2013.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patai Á, Solymosi N, Mohácsi L, Patai ÁV (2017) Indomethacin and diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 85:1144–1456.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greiner M, Pfeiffer D, Smith RD (2000) Principles and practical application of the receiver-operating characteristic analysis for diagnostic tests. Prev Vet Med 45:23–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-5877(00)00115-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoo ZH, Candlish J, Teare D (2017) What is an ROC curve? Emerg Med J 34:357–359.  https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2017-206735 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1983) A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology. 148:839–843.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.148.3.6878708 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rustagi T, Jamidar PA (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events: general overview. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 25:97–106. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2014.09.005
  26. 26.
    Mehnert CS, Graessler J, Kamvissi-Lorenz V et al (2014) Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline – updated June 2014. Endoscopy 46:799–815.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1377875 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mine T, Morizane T, Kawaguchi Y, Akashi R, Hanada K, Ito T, Kanno A, Kida M, Miyagawa H, Yamaguchi T, Mayumi T, Takeyama Y, Shimosegawa T (2017) Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 52:1013–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1359-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA et al (2017) Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 85:32–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tomoda T, Kato H, Ueki T et al (2019) Combination of diclofenac and sublingual nitrates is superior to diclofenac alone in preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 156:1753–1760.e1.  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.267 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ogura T, Imoto A, Okuda A, Fukunishi S, Higuchi K (2019) Can Iodixanol prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis? A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Dig Dis 37:255–261.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000496349 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kamal A, Akshintala VS, Talukdar R, Goenka MK, Kochhar R, Lakhtakia S, Ramchandani MK, Sinha S, Goud R, Rai VK, Tandan M, Gupta R, Elmunzer BJ, Ngamruengphong S, Kumbhari V, Khashab MA, Kalloo AN, Reddy DN, Singh VK (2019) A randomized trial of topical epinephrine and rectal indomethacin for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Am J Gastroenterol 114:339–347.  https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000049
  32. 32.
    Yadav D, Agarwal N, Pitchumoni CS (2002) A critical evaluation of laboratory tests in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 97:1309–1318.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05766.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yinan S, Zhouchong W, Tian Y et al (2015) Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese guidelines 2015. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 22:405–432.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gumaste V, Dave P, Sereny G (1992) Serum lipase: a better test to diagnose acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Am J Med 92:239–242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9343(92)90070-R CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Akhtar A, Sarode R, Agrawal D (2017) Measuring both serum amylase and lipase for acute pancreatitis lowers quality and raises cost. Cleve Clin J Med 84:670–672.  https://doi.org/10.3949/ccjm.84a.16103 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sharma A, Masood U, Khan B, Chawla K, Manocha D (2017) Pancreatitis with normal lipase and amylase in setting of end-stage renal disease. Am J Emerg Med 35:1387.e3–1387.e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GastroenterologyRenmin Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina
  2. 2.Hubei Key Laboratory of Digestive System DiseaseRenmin Hospital of Wuhan UniversityWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations