Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33495919›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2021

Nafamostat Mesylate is Not Effective in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis.

Takaaki Matsumoto, Kosuke Okuwaki, Hiroshi Imaizumi, Mitsuhiro Kida, Tomohisa Iwai, Hiroshi Yamauchi, Toru Kaneko, Rikiya Hasegawa, Hironori Masutani, Masayoshi Tadehara and 7 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Takaaki MatsumotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Kosuke OkuwakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan. kokuwaki@kitasato-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-3671-1299
Hiroshi ImaizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Mitsuhiro KidaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Tomohisa IwaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Hiroshi YamauchiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Toru KanekoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Rikiya HasegawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Hironori MasutaniDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Masayoshi TadeharaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Kai AdachiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Masafumi WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Takahiro KurosuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Akihiro TamakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Hidehiko KikuchiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hiratsuka Kyosai Hospital, 9-11 Oiwake, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa, 254-8502, Japan.
Takashi OhnoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Isehara Kyodo Hospital, 345 Tanaka, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1187, Japan.
Wasaburo KoizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, Kanagawa, 252-0374, Japan.
Kitasato University · JPHiratsuka Kyosai Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with complications such as post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Protease inhibitors, including nafamostat mesylate (NM), have been evaluated for prophylaxis against PEP.

aimWe describe the first multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing the prophylactic efficacy of NM against PEP.

methodsIn this multicenter prospective study, we aimed to enroll 800 patients aged ≥ 20 years with a planned ERCP between December 2012 and March 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of PEP in patients who did not receive NM (non-NM) versus those who did (NM; 20 mg). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PEP by NM initiation (pre- and post-ERCP), risk factors for PEP, and NM-related adverse events.

resultsOnly 441 of the planned 800 patients were enrolled (non-NM: n = 149; NM: n = 292 [pre-ERCP NM: n = 144; post-ERCP NM: n = 148]). Patient characteristics were balanced at baseline with no significant differences between groups. PEP occurred in 40/441 (9%) patients (non-NM: n = 15 [10%]; NM: n = 25 [9%]), including 17 (12%) and eight (8%) in the pre-ERCP and post-ERCP NM groups, respectively. In the NM group, the incidence of PEP was lower in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group. Pancreatic injection and double-guidewire technique were independent risk factors for PEP. NM-related adverse events of hyperkalemia occurred in two (0.7%) patients.

conclusionsWe found no evidence for the prophylactic effect of NM against PEP, regardless of the timing of administration; however, further studies are needed.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBenzamidinesCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeFemaleGuanidinesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatitisProspective StudiesTrypsin InhibitorsBenzamidinesGuanidinesnafamostatTrypsin InhibitorsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyPancreasPancreatitisProtease inhibitor

Identifiers

PMID33495919
OpenAlexW3125017263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.