Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 7, 2021; 27(1): 69-79
Published online Jan 7, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i1.69
Published online Jan 7, 2021. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i1.69
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis [n (%), n = 58]
Independent variables | Total number |
Age in yr, range (mean) | 54–73 (67) |
Gender, female/male | 25/33 |
Symptom | |
Abdominal pain concomitant with jaundice Tumor largest dimension in mm, range (mean) | 6 (10.3) |
Ascites, slight or mild | 24–100 (44.3) |
Tumor location | 4 (6.9) |
Pancreatic head/neck | |
Pancreatic body/tail | 18 (31.0) |
Initial VAS score, range (mean) | 40 (69.0) |
Tramadol use before EUS-CPN | 6-10 (8) |
Dose in mg, range (mean) | 51 (87.9) |
Ganglia visualized | 0-240 (40) |
Invasion of celiac plexus | 42 (72.4) |
Distant metastasis | 16 (27.6) |
Injected alcohol dose in mL, range (mean) | 26 (44.8) |
Procedure method | 5–20 (10) |
Unilateral | |
Bilateral | 33 (56.9) |
Intra-procedural decrease in heart rate | 25 (43.1) |
decrease of ≥ 5 beats for ≥ 10 s | |
48 (82.8) |
Table 2 Univariable analysis of variables associated with pain response after 1 wk in the enrolled cohort of 58 patients
Independent variables | OR | 95%CI | P value |
Age in yr | 1.084 | 0.60-3.88 | 0.212 |
Gender, female/male | 1.39 | 0.43-3.79 | 0.64 |
Symptom | |||
Abdominal pain concomitant with jaundice | 1.29 | 0.53–3.26 | 0.581 |
Tumor largest dimension | 1.32 | 0.45-4.69 | 0.665 |
Ascites | 1.772 | 0.59–6.84 | 0.437 |
Tumor location | |||
Pancreatic head/neck | 2.071 | 0.60-7.09 | 0.232 |
Pancreatic body/tail | 0.617 | 0.65-10.40 | 0.094 |
Initial VAS score | 2.231 | 0.76-5.41 | 0.132 |
Tramadol use before EUS-CPN | 1.339 | 0.54-15.39 | 0.327 |
Invisible ganglia | 3.574 | 1.80-14.24 | 0.003 |
Invasion of celiac plexus | 7.922 | 2.24-25.93 | 0.001 |
Distant metastasis | 5.94 | 1.31–11.82 | 0.015 |
Injected alcohol dose | 3.825 | 1.12–13.42 | 0.437 |
Procedure method | |||
Unilateral | 1.677 | 0.84–11.48 | 0.591 |
Bilateral | 0.489 | 0.11–1.12 | 0.087 |
Intra-procedural decrease in heart rate | 1.011 | 0.91–2.08 | 0.933 |
Table 3 Multivariate analysis for predictors affecting pain response after 1 wk by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis
Independent variables | OR | 95%CI | P value |
Ganglia invisible | 4.9 | 2.25-17.91 | 0.011 |
Invasion of celiac plexus | 13.2 | 3.02-46.27 | 0.003 |
Distant metastasis | 6.84 | 2.34–19.15 | 0.022 |
Table 4 Univariable analysis of variables associated with pain response after 4 wk in the enrolled cohort of 58 patients
Independent variables | OR | 95%CI | P value |
Age in yr | 1.091 | 0.63-3.94 | 0.209 |
Gender, female/male | 1.124 | 0.47-3.99 | 0.532 |
Symptom | |||
Abdominal pain concomitant with | 1.384 | 0.43–4.82 | 0.618 |
jaundice | 1.496 | 0.32-5.92 | 0.701 |
Tumor largest dimension | 1.921 | 0.79–9.34 | 0.408 |
Ascites | |||
Tumor location | 3.59 | 0.40-10.06 | 0.184 |
Pancreatic head/neck | 0.42 | 0.15-12.77 | 0.082 |
Pancreatic body/tail | 2.93 | 0.42-8.17 | 0.101 |
Initial VAS score | 2.91 | 0.24-19.40 | 0.149 |
Tramadol use before EUS-CPN | 4.02 | 1.62-13.27 | 0.003 |
Invisible ganglia | 8.84 | 2.11-23.32 | 0.001 |
Invasion of celiac plexus | 7.83 | 1.81–15.77 | 0.009 |
Distant metastasis | 4.90 | 1.32–17.91 | 0.394 |
Injected alcohol dose | |||
Procedure method | 2.87 | 0.44–17.41 | 0.502 |
Unilateral | 0.54 | 0.16–1.99 | 0.093 |
Bilateral | 0.94 | 0.42–3.12 | 0.858 |
Intra-procedural decrease in heart rate |
Table 5 Multivariate analysis for predictors affecting pain response after 4 wk by endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis
Independent variables | OR | 95%CI | P value |
Invisible ganglia | 5.85 | 2.66-22.73 | 0.037 |
Invasion of celiac plexus | 15.11 | 4.01-51.22 | 0.001 |
Distant metastasis | 8.59 | 2.16–27.02 | 0.019 |
- Citation: Han CQ, Tang XL, Zhang Q, Nie C, Liu J, Ding Z. Predictors of pain response after endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain caused by pancreatic malignancy. World J Gastroenterol 2021; 27(1): 69-79
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v27/i1/69.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i1.69