An endoscopic pancreatic function test with cholecystokinin-octapeptide for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current pancreatic function tests are cumbersome and unavailable to the clinical gastroenterologist. We have developed a function test that can be modified to a purely endoscopic collection method (ePFT). The aim of this study was to compare the endoscopic and traditional Dreiling tube collection methods. METHODS: Two separate groups of healthy subjects and patients with chronic pancreatitis underwent pancreatic function testing. One group underwent the endoscopic collection method (ePFT). Intravenous cholecystokinin (CCK 40 ng x kg(-1) x h(-1)) was started in preprocedure area. Duodenal fluid was collected with upper endoscope during endoscopy at 30, 40, 50, and 60 minutes during infusion. Another group underwent the traditional Dreiling collection method. Intravenous CCK was started in postprocedure area after endoscopic tube placement. Duodenal fluid was collected at 0, 20, 40, 60, and 80 minutes during infusion. Lipase concentration was determined (IU/L) on laboratory autoanalyzer. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were studied. Thirty-four underwent endoscopic collection and 39 underwent Dreiling collection. The mean peak lipase concentrations (+/- standard deviation) for healthy subjects and patients with chronic pancreatitis in the endoscopic collection method group were 1612500 +/- 556152 IU/L and 369594 +/- 281624 IU/L, respectively (P < 0.001). The mean peak lipase concentrations (+/- standard deviation) for healthy subjects and patients with chronic pancreatitis in the Dreiling tube collection method group were 1670324 +/- 786731 IU/L and 478956 +/- 406061 IU/L, respectively (P < 0.001). There was no statistical difference between collection methods at distinguishing healthy subjects and patients with chronic pancreatitis. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) for the endoscopic and Dreiling collection methods were 0.993 (standard error of mean, 0.009) and 0.921 (standard error of mean, 0.041). A lipase concentration cut point of 810600 IU/L distinguishes healthy subjects from patients with chronic pancreatitis with a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 95%, respectively. The ePFT was safe, short in duration, minimized costs (US dollars 1890 vs. US dollars 2659), required small amounts of fluid for analysis (1-3 mL), and eliminated radiation exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of timed endoscopic aspirations of pancreatic juice after hormonal stimulation can distinguish healthy subjects from patients with chronic pancreatitis. This new endoscopic collection method (ePFT) is less cumbersome and more time efficient, when compared to traditional collection methods. The ePFT broadens the availability of function testing to the practicing clinical gastroenterologist.

Analysis of duodenal drainage fluid after cholecystokinin (CCK) stimulation in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Hormonal stimulatory agents are used to assess pancreatic function. Biologically derived secretin, the most widely used pancreatic secretagogue, is no longer available in the United States. Existing secretory tests using cholecystokinin alone are cumbersome, requiring a unique dual tube (gastric and duodenal) collection system and constant perfusion of a nonabsorbable marker to calculate enzyme output (in international units [IU]). A simpler, quantitative cholecystokinin stimulation test that measures enzyme concentrations (in international units per liter [IU/L]) instead of total output would obviate need for marker perfusion/collection. The aim of our experiment was to study the secretory patterns of pancreatic enzyme concentration in duodenal fluid after cholecystokinin stimulation in healthy volunteers. METHODOLOGY: Healthy subjects had a Dreiling tube inserted endoscopically into the ligament of Treitz. Gastric and duodenal aspiration ports were connected to low intermittent suction. A 20-minute baseline was obtained to clear the gastric and duodenal lumina of residual fluid. Cholecystokinin was infused at a constant rate of 40 ng/kg per hour. Duodenal fluid was collected on ice for 80 minutes in four 20-minute aliquots. Aspirated fluid was analyzed for enzyme concentration with an automated chemistry analyzer in the hospital biochemistry laboratory. RESULTS: Nineteen healthy volunteers were studied. The mean volume (+/-SEM) of duodenal fluid collected was 85 +/- 4.4 mL (range, 48 to 118 mL). Fluid analysis revealed a significant rise in mean lipase concentration (+/-SEM) from a baseline of 595,680 +/- 11,930 IU/L to a peak of 1,778,847 +/- 171,204 IU/L (mean difference = 1,183,167 IU/L; 95% CI= 664,459 IU/L to 1,701,875 IU/L; < 0.001, Student test). Increases in amylase concentrations were markedly less pronounced and did not reach statistical significance. Mean peak lipase concentration occurred within 50 minutes of acinar cell stimulation. All patients tolerated tube placement, and there were no episodes of acute pancreatitis or abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic lipase concentrations in duodenal fluid increase nearly threefold after cholecystokinin stimulation in healthy volunteers. This magnitude of enzyme secretory response may be a marker of pancreatic function and could potentially lead to a more clinically useful and simpler pancreatic function test. This physiologic study serves as the basis for our further investigations of cholecystokinin-stimulated lipase concentrations as a new test in the assessment of pancreatic insufficiency.

Cholecystokinin-stimulated peak lipase concentration in duodenal drainage fluid: a new pancreatic function test.

OBJECTIVE: Hormonal stimulation with secretin or cholecystokinin (CCK) is the most sensitive means of assessing pancreatic function. Secretin is not available, and current CCK tests are cumbersome, requiring dual tube intubation and marker perfusion techniques. The aim of this study was to test the efficacy of a new CCK-stimulated pancreatic function test measuring peak lipase concentration. METHODS: A Dreiling gastroduodenal tube was inserted to the ligament of Treitz, and fluid was collected on ice for 80 min in four 20-min aliquots. CCK was infused i.v. at a constant rate of 40 ng/kg/h. Gastric aspirations were discarded. Duodenal aspirates were analyzed for volume and enzyme concentration with a clinical laboratory autoanalyzer. RESULTS: Nineteen healthy volunteers and 18 chronic pancreatitis patients were studied. Lipase concentration and secretory volume showed a peak response by 40 min of stimulation, whereas amylase response was variable. The mean peak lipase concentrations (+/-SEM) for normal volunteers and mild, moderate, and advanced chronic pancreatitis patients were 16.9+/-1.9, 7.9+/-1.7, 3.7+/-1.2, and 2.1+/-0.6 x 10 5 IU/L, respectively. Lower peak lipase concentrations were significantly associated with more advanced chronic pancreatitis (p < 0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve area for all chronic pancreatitis patients was 0.944 (95% CI = 0.825-0.985). A peak lipase concentration of 780,000 IU/L provided a sensitivity and specificity of 0.833 and 0.867, respectively. This CCK test was well tolerated and without complications. CONCLUSIONS: Lipase concentration in duodenal fluid increases nearly 3-fold from baseline after CCK stimulation in healthy volunteers but is markedly reduced in patients with chronic pancreatic disease. Peak lipase concentration is a significant predictor of chronic pancreatitis and correlates with severity of pancreatic disease. Aspiration of duodenal drainage fluid with a Dreiling tube and analysis with a laboratory autoanalyzer are less cumbersome than marker perfusion and back titration techniques. Measurement of enzyme concentration instead of output could lead to the development of an endoscopic or through-the-scope screening method for assessing patients with suspected chronic pancreatitis or chronic abdominal pain.

Gastroenterologist-administered propofol versus meperidine and midazolam for advanced upper endoscopy: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Propofol is increasingly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy because of its rapid recovery profile. There has been no prospective, randomized comparison of gastroenterologist-administered propofol to meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Additionally, its cost-effectiveness has not been studied. METHODS: Seventy-five randomized patients received either gastroenterologist-administered propofol (n = 38) or meperidine/midazolam (n = 37) for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. Monitoring with capnography allowed for rapid titration of propofol at the earliest signs of respiratory depression. Visual analogue scales measured tolerance and satisfaction. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by using return to baseline for both activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure as the effectiveness measure. RESULTS: The groups had similar physiological outcomes and satisfaction. Patients receiving propofol had shorter recovery times (P < 0.001) and a higher recovery of both baseline activity level and dietary intake 24 hours after the procedure (P = 0.028). With incremental cost-effectiveness analysis, gastroenterologist-administered propofol cost an additional $403.00 per additional patient at 100% of baseline for both activity level and food intake when compared with standard sedation and analgesia. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the only model in which propofol administration would become the dominant strategy was with its administration by a registered nurse. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologist-administered propofol using monitoring with capnography is similar to meperidine/midazolam for both physiological outcomes and patient/endoscopist satisfaction. Propofol leads to significantly improved recovery of baseline activity and food intake 24 hours after the procedure. Our model suggests that propofol would be more cost-effective than meperidine and midazolam for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography if registered nurse administration were possible.

Automated graphic assessment of respiratory activity is superior to pulse oximetry and visual assessment for the detection of early respiratory depression during therapeutic upper endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations from the American Society of Anesthesiologists suggest that monitoring for apnea using the detection of exhaled carbon dioxide (capnography) is a useful adjunct in the assessment of ventilatory status of patients undergoing sedation and analgesia. There are no data on the utility of capnography in GI endoscopy, nor is the frequency of abnormal ventilatory activity during endoscopy known. The aims of this study were to determine the following: (1) the frequency of abnormal ventilatory activity during therapeutic upper endoscopy, (2) the sensitivity of observation and pulse oximetry in the detection of apnea or disordered respiration, and (3) whether capnography provides an improvement over accepted monitoring techniques. METHODS: Forty-nine patients undergoing therapeutic upper endoscopy were monitored with standard methods including pulse oximetry, automated blood pressure measurement, and visual assessment. In addition, graphic assessment of respiratory activity with sidestream capnography was performed in all patients. Endoscopy personnel were blinded to capnography data. Episodes of apnea or disordered respiration detected by capnography were documented and compared with the occurrence of hypoxemia, hypercapnea, hypotension, and the recognition of abnormal respiratory activity by endoscopy personnel. RESULTS: Comparison of simultaneous respiratory rate measurements obtained by capnography and by auscultation with a pretracheal stethoscope verified that capnography was an excellent indicator of respiratory rate when compared with the reference standard (auscultation) (r = 0.967, p < 0.001). Fifty-four episodes of apnea or disordered respiration occurred in 28 patients (mean duration 70.8 seconds). Only 50% of apnea or disordered respiration episodes were eventually detected by pulse oximetry. None were detected by visual assessment (p < 0.0010). CONCLUSIONS: Apnea/disordered respiration occurs commonly during therapeutic upper endoscopy and frequently precedes the development of hypoxemia. Potentially important abnormalities in respiratory activity are undetected with pulse oximetry and visual assessment.