No abstract available.
Dacarbazine* ; Gabexate*

No abstract available.
Dinoprost* ; Flurbiprofen* ; Gabexate* ; Prednisolone* ; Thromboxane B2*

PURPOSE: Both antithrombin III(ATIII) and Gabexate mesilate(Foy) are effective for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation(DIC). However, their mechanisms of action are slightly different, and combined effect of ATIII and Foy in premature infant with DIC has not been studied. We evaluated therapeutic efficacy of treatments with either ATIII or Foy alone or both in combination. METHODS: We studied 23 premature infants of gestational ages between 30 and 36 weeks with DIC. Group A(n=10) was treated by ATIII only, Group B(n=7) by Foy only and Group C(n=6) by both ATIII and Foy. Three groups were compared for volume of blood sampling and transfusion and hematologic data. RESULTS: Improvement of hematologic data(platelet, PT, aPTT, fibrinogen, FDP) was not significantly different among 3 groups. The mean volume of blood sampling during 5 days of treatment was 30 mL, 22.5 mL, and 30 mL, respectively. The mean volume of packed RBC transfusion was 12.8 mL, 9 mL, and 2.5 mL, respectively: and mean volume of platelet transfusion was 25.9 mL, 10 mL, and 0 mL, respectively, showing no significant statistical difference. But the mean volume of FFP transfusion was 141 mL only in group B, significantly higher compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: The combination therapy of ATIII and Foy significantly decreased the volume of FFP transfusion and may be more effective than monotherapy with ATIII or Foy alone in DIC of premature infant.
Dacarbazine ; Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation* ; Fibrinogen ; Gabexate* ; Gestational Age ; Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Infant, Premature* ; Platelet Transfusion ; Thrombin*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The protease inhibitors, nafamostat and gabexate, have been used to prevent pancreatitis related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In vitro, nafamostat inhibits the pancreatic protease activities 10-100 times more potently than gabexate. We evaluated the efficacy of nafamostat for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis in comparison with gabexate. METHODS: Five hundred patients (208 patients in the nafamostat-treated group and 292 in the gabexate-treated group) were analyzed retrospectively after selective exclusion. The incidences of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia after the ERCP were compared between the nafamostat and gabexate groups. RESULTS: The incidences of acute pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were 9.1% and 40.9%, respectively, in the nafamostat-treated group, and 8.6% and 39.4% in the gabexate-treated group. The frequencies of post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia did not differ significantly between the two groups, Post-ERCP pancreatitis in two group did not vary according to the different ERCP procedures. The mean serum amylase level at 6 h after ERCP was significantly lower in the nafamostat-treated group than in the gabexate-treated group (p=0.020). However, the difference in serum amylase level did not persist at 18 h and 36 h post-ERCP. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of nafamostat before ERCP was not inferior to gabexate in protecting against the development of pancreatitis.
Amylases ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Gabexate ; Guanidines ; Humans ; Hyperamylasemia ; Incidence ; Pancreatitis ; Protease Inhibitors ; Retrospective Studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Only a few pharmacologic agents have been shown to have potential efficacy for the prophylactic treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to determine whether prophylactic gabexate and ulinastatin can decrease the incidence of PEP. METHODS: From January 2005 to April 2010, 1,679 patients undergoing ERCP treatment were consecutively enrolled in the study. After selective exclusion, a total of 1,480 patients were included in the analysis. The patients were separated into 3 groups according to the prophylactic administration of gabexate (593 patients), ulinastatin (229 patients), or saline solution (658 patients) and analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome measurements were the incidence of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia. RESULTS: PEP occurred in 21 of the 593 (3.5%) patients who received gabexate, 16 of the 229 (7.0%) patients who received ulinastatin, and 48 of the 658 (7.3%) patients who received a saline solution. The incidence of PEP was significantly different between the gabexate and ulinastatin or saline solution groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gabexate prophylaxis is effective in preventing PEP. However, there is no difference in the beneficial effects of the prophylactic administration of ulinastatin and a saline solution.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Gabexate ; Glycoproteins ; Humans ; Incidence ; Oligopeptides ; Pancreatitis ; Retrospective Studies ; Sodium Chloride

We have reported that serum amylase and lipase level elevate immediately after total gastrectomy independent to whether the pancreas is manipulated or not. Although we found high levels of amylase and lipase from the draining fluid via intraabdominal drain, none of them became pancreatic fistula. To check the amylase and lipase level after distal gastrectomy and to check whether the protease inhibitor (gabexate mesilate) reduce the elevated amylase and lipase, we made a prospective study. A Jackson-Pratt drain was inserted intraperitoneally during the operation to check amylase and lipase levels postoperatively. We present the postoperative changing patterns of amylase and lipase levels in the draining fluid. Serum amylase and lipase levels were also monitored. We found elevation of amylase and lipase concentrations in the draining fluid for a few days after distal gastrectomy. However, none of the patients developed pancreatic fistula, although all of the surgical methods showed hyperamylasemia and hyperlipasemia. Postoperative treatment with protease inhibitor was not effective against the elevated amylase and lipase levels in serum or draining fluid.
Amylases ; Gabexate ; Gastrectomy* ; Humans ; Hyperamylasemia ; Lipase ; Pancreas ; Pancreatic Fistula ; Prospective Studies ; Protease Inhibitors*

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gabexate, a protease inhibitor, has been known to prevent pancreatic damage following ERCP. We conducted a prospective and randomized study to assess the preventive effect of gabexate. Methods: Of the 96 patients enrolled, 46 were treated with gabexate and 50 with placebo. The groups were similar with regard to sex, age, body-mass index, and the final diagnosis of ERCP. RESULTS: 24 patients (25.0%) had elevated pancreatic-enzyme levels; the frequency was similar in the two groups (P=0.48). Mean serum amylase value at 4 hours after ERCP was similar in patients with elevated basal level (220.5+/-43.2 U/L) and those with normal basal level (170.4+/-31.2 U/L). After the procedures, serum amylase values were lower in the gabexate group (137.1+/-19.8 U/L) than in the placebo group (212.0+/-50.4 U/L). The differences were not significant in the mean levels of amylase between the groups for any of imaging of the pancreatic ducts (pancreatic-duct imaging, 201.5+/-49.4 U/L, bile-duct imaging, 153.7+/-30.0 U/L). But in the patients with pancreatic duct imaging, serum amylase values were significantly higher in the placebo group (295.0+/-97.6 U/L) than in the gabexate group (112.0+/-10.6 U/L)(p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic treatment with gabexate does not reduce pancreatic damage related to ERCP, but only in the patients with pancreatic duct imaging there were the significant differences between in the gabexate group and in the placebo group.
Amylases ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde* ; Diagnosis ; Gabexate* ; Humans ; Pancreatic Ducts ; Pancreatitis ; Prospective Studies ; Protease Inhibitors

BACKGROUNDPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is regarded as one of the worrisome complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Results of randomized controlled trials evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and gabexate mesylate (GM) on PEP are contradictory. The present study was designed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODSFive electronic databases were searched for RCTs evaluating the preventive effect of ulinastatin and GM on PEP. Summary effects were assessed with the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.

RESULTSTwelve studies involving 5105 participants were included in our meta-analyses. Administration of ulinastatin decreased the incidence of PEP only at sufficient doses (OR, 0.39; 95%CI, 0.19 to 0.81; P = 0.01). Number needed to treat (NNT) was 6. And administration of ulinastatin also reduced the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) (OR, 0.40; 95%CI, 0.28 to 0.58; P < 0.000 01). Slow infusion of high-dose GM was effective for PEP prevention (OR, 0.44; 95%CI, 0.25 to 0.79; P = 0.006), and rapid infusion of low-dose GM also showed efficacy for PEP prophylaxis (OR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.20 to 0.69; P = 0.002). NNT was 7 and 6 respectively. However, administration of GM at low doses and by slow infusions was ineffective (OR, 0.99; 95%CI, 0.64 to 1.55; P = 0.98). Administration of GM had the tendency to reduce PEHA rate, but not to a statistical significance (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.73 to 1.01; P = 0.06). When low-quality studies were excluded, the meta-analysis with two high-quality studies indicated that ulinastatin did not reduce the rate of PEP (OR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.32 to 1.26; P = 0.19) and PEHA incidence (OR, 0.80; 95%CI, 0.31 to 2.07; P = 0.64). The meta-analysis with six high-quality studies showed that GM administration decreased PEP incidence (OR, 0.52; 95%CI, 0.29 to 0.91; P = 0.02), while was not efficacious for PEHA prevention (OR, 0.88; 95%CI, 0.74 to 1.04; P = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONSUlinastatin and GM may be of value for the prophylaxis of PEP. GM should be administered at high doses and by rapid infusions. And the doses of ulinastatin should be sufficient. However, the conclusions are not overwhelming. More large-sample size and high-quality RCTs are still needed to elucidate whether administrations of the two drugs really have prophylactic effect on PEP.

PURPOSE: To find progression and prognosis of pancreatitis developed in massive burn patients through retrospective analysis. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 32 patients with abnormal increase of serum lipase level among 2523 acute burn patients admitted to our burn center from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. Pancreatitis in this study was defined as a serum lipase concentration level that is higher than 180 IU/L which is three times more than the normal level (less than 60 IU/L). In this study, a retrospective analysis was performed on patients with serum lipase level higher than 300 IU/L to better understand causality of burns and pancreatitis. RESULTS: 32 patients (1.27%) had serum lipase level higher than 180 IU/L among 2523 acute burn subjects. And 13 patients (0.52%) of these 32 patients had serum lipase level elevated more than 300 IU/L. The study indicated serum lipase level was increased around 7 days after the injury. It returned to normal level early as after 1 to 2 weeks and late as after 4 to 6 weeks of injury. The serum amylase level was increased as similar modality as to the serum lipase level increase. The serum bilirubin, AST, ALT, LD, and GGT were also observed to be elevated when serum lipase was more than 1000 IU/L. CONCLUSION: The pancreatitis developed in burn patients are mostly as mild symptom. It could due to the ischemic injury and can easily be treated by a temporary fasting, TPN, and Gabexate intravenous injection.
Amylases ; Bilirubin ; Burn Units ; Burns ; Fasting ; Gabexate ; Humans ; Injections, Intravenous ; Lipase ; Pancreatitis ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent studies reported that 1g of gabexate mesilate (GM) was effective in preventing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related pancreatic damage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low dose GM for the prevention of ERCP-related pancreatic damage. METHODS: This study was performed prospectively with 102 consecutive patients (68 for the GM group, 34 for the placebo group) who were scheduled for ERCP. Infusion of GM (500 mg) was started 30 minutes before ERCP and continued for 12 hours afterward. The serum amylase and lipase were measured before ERCP and 4, 8, and 24 houps after ERCP. RESULTS: The incidence of hyperenzymemia was 45.6% in the GM group and 55.9% in the control group (p=0.40). Acute pancreatitis was developed in only one patient who was given the placebo. Although difficult cannulation, visualization of the pancreatic duct, performance of therapeutic procedures, and longer total procedure time were associated with an increased incidence of hyperenzymemia, the incidence of pancreatic damage was not affected by the GM treatment in these conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic treatment with 500 mg of GM has no advantage for the prevention of ERCP-related pancreatic damage. Considering the cost effectiveness, further studies are necessary to identify the patients at greatest risk fot acute pancreatitis.
Amylases ; Catheterization ; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde* ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Gabexate* ; Humans ; Incidence ; Lipase ; Pancreatic Ducts ; Pancreatitis ; Prospective Studies