Temporary pancreatic stent to prevent post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a preliminary, single-center, randomized controlled trial

A network meta-analysis of optimal strategies for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), but it remains uncertain which approach is the most effective. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare different preventive strategies for overall, mild, and moderate-to-severe PEP in both average- and high-risk patients. A systematic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies that featured at least two of the following interventions: pre-procedural administration of 100 mg of rectal diclofenac (D) or indomethacin (I), aggressive hydration utilizing normal saline (NS) or lactated Ringer's solution (LR), 5-french pancreatic duct stent (S), and either a placebo or an active control (C). The interventions were ranked according to their surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024538533). Of the total 42 (n = 11,493) identified studies, 23 studies (n = 5,410) were categorized into the average-risk group and 19 studies (n = 6,083) were categorized into high-risk group. Based on SUCRA, I + NS was ranked as the best preventive method for overall and mild PEP in average-risk group. However, I + LR was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. In high-risk group, I + S was the best preventive method of overall and mild PEP. However, D was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. The findings of this network meta-analysis indicate that endoscopists should consider all available prophylactic options when performing ERCP, rather than favoring one over the others.

Ascending colon perforation by a migrated pancreatic spontaneous dislodgment stent: a case report

Here, we report a case of a 74-year-old woman treated for acute cholecystitis. She initially underwent percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage; however, cholecystitis recurred when the drain was clamped. Therefore, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) was performed. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed, and a transpapillary gallbladder stent was placed. Additionally, a pancreatic spontaneous dislodgment stent (PSDS) was inserted to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Cholecystitis resolved, and the patient was discharged seven days later. Twenty-five days after ETGBD, she experienced abdominal pain, and computed tomography revealed ascending colon perforation by the migrated PSDS. She underwent laparoscopic surgery, in which the perforation was sutured, and an ileostomy was performed. The postoperative course was uneventful, and colonoscopy performed two months after surgery revealed multiple diverticula in the ascending colon. PSDS-induced gastrointestinal perforations are extremely rare. Previous case reports have suggested that perforation is caused by long-term stent retention in the gastrointestinal tract due to obstructions, such as peritonitis carcinomatosa or postoperative adhesions. We believe that in this case, the PSDS was retained because of multiple colonic diverticula. PSDS should be used with caution in patients with multiple colonic diverticula, peritonitis carcinomatosa, and postoperative adhesions.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis 2023

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) 2023 provide updated recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PEP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a valuable procedure for diagnosing and treating pancreatobiliary diseases, can result in PEP as the most common adverse event. Since the first guidelines were published in 2015, advances in techniques and new research findings have necessitated this revision. The guidelines developed using the GRADE methodology target adult patients undergoing ERCP. They offer a comprehensive framework for clinicians to minimize the risk of PEP. For high-risk patients, endoscopic ultrasound before ERCP is recommended to avoid unnecessary procedures. The guidelines also discuss procedural and patient-related risk factors for PEP, highlighting that operator experience does not significantly affect PEP rates if performed under the supervision of skilled endoscopists. The diagnostic criteria include monitoring serum pancreatic enzyme levels postprocedure, and early computed tomography is advised in suspected cases. For treatment, the guidelines recommend following acute pancreatitis protocols. Key preventive measures include the use of temporary pancreatic duct stents and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, both of which are supported by strong evidence for reducing the incidence of PEP. Overall, these guidelines aim to enhance clinical outcomes by reducing PEP incidence and improving its management through evidence-based practices.

One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.

CONCLUSION

Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.

A comparison of two types of contrast media used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most serious complications of ERCP. Various procedures can reduce the incidence of PEP, such as wire-guided cannulation, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pretreatment anal insertion of NSAIDs. Recently, iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM) have been used for ERCP in several hospitals to reduce the risk of PEP in Japan. However, the effect of IOCM is uncertain because few reports have examined IOCM in relation to PEP.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the relationship between contrast media used and the incidence of PEP.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all qualifying patients who had undergone ERCP at Hamamatsu University Hospital between January 2012 and January 2020. This study examined whether there was a difference in the onset of PEP between patients administered IOCM and high osmolar contrast medium (HOCM). Propensity score matching was used to analyze patient characteristics and ERCP procedures. Amidotrizoic acid was used as HOCM and iodixanol as IOCM.

RESULTS

ERCP was performed on 458 patients, and 830 procedures were conducted. After propensity score matching, 162 patients from the amidotrizoic acid group and 162 patients from the iodixanol group were selected. The incidence of PEP was 10.5% (17) in the amidotrizoic acid group and 9.3% (15) in the iodixanol group (P = 0.71). Changes in serum amylase levels post- and pre-ERCP were 240.6 ± 573.8 U/L and 142.7 ± 382.1 U/L in the amidotrizoic acid and iodixanol groups, respectively (P = 0.072).

CONCLUSION

Iodixanol had no prophylactic effect on PEP and clinical outcomes.

JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy-to-understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In preparing the Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2021, the committee focused the issues raised by the results of nationwide epidemiological survey in 2016 in Japan.

METHOD

In addition to a systematic search using the previous JPN guidelines, papers published from January 2014 to September 2019 were searched for the contents to be covered by the guidelines based on the concept of GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinical questions (CQ) were prepared in 15 subject areas. Based on the facts that patients diagnosed with severe disease by both Japanese prognostic factor score and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) grade had a high fatality rate and that little prognosis improvement after 2 weeks of disease onset was not obtained, we emphasized the importance of Pancreatitis Bundles, which were shown to be effective in improving prognosis, and the CQ sections for local pancreatic complications had been expanded to ensure adoption of a step-up approach. Furthermore, on the facts that enteral nutrition for severe acute pancreatitis was not started early within 48 h of admission and that unnecessary prophylactic antibiotics was used in almost all cases, we emphasized early enteral nutrition in small amounts even if gastric feeding is used and no prophylactic antibiotics are administered in mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

All the members of the committee have put a lot of effort into preparing the extensively revised guidelines in the hope that more people will have a common understanding and that better medical care will be spread.

Efficacy of Combining Aggressive Hydration With Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination modalities are superior to single modalities for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Different modalities have been employed to reduce the risk and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, there has been a paucity of studies comparing the efficacy of various prophylactic modalities for preventing PEP. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the relative efficacy of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological modalities for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all randomized controlled studies published until June 2020 that examined the effectiveness of pancreatic duct stents, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) based regimens, hydration, and their combinations for the prevention of PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. An NMA was performed to combine direct and indirect comparisons of different prophylactic modalities.

RESULTS

The NMA included 46 studies evaluating 18 regimens in 16,241 patients. Based on integral analysis of predictive interval plots, and expected mean ranking and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, combination prophylaxis with indomethacin + lactated Ringer's solution (LR), followed by diclofenac + nitrate and indomethacin + normal saline, was found to be the most efficacious modality for the overall prevention of PEP. Indomethacin + LR, followed by diclofenac and pancreatic duct stents, was the most efficacious modality for high-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination regimens with aggressive hydration or nitrate are superior to single modalities for the prevention of PEP.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, but the comparative efficacy of these treatments remains unclear. Our aim was to do an exploratory network meta-analysis of previous RCTs to systematically compare the direct and indirect evidence and rank NSAIDs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these to determine the most efficacious method of prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from inception to Nov 15, 2020, for full-text RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention in adult (aged ≥18 years) patients undergoing ERCP. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from published reports. We analysed incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis across studies using network meta-analysis under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the confidence rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020172606.

FINDINGS

We identified 1503 studies, of which 55 RCTs evaluating 20 interventions in 17 062 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The mean incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the placebo or active control group was 12·2% (95% CI 11·4-13·0). Normal saline plus rectal indometacin (OR 0·02, 95% CI 0·00-0·40), intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg (0·24, 0·09-0·69), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·30, 0·16-0·55), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate (0·31, 0·12-0·78), 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·35, 0·26-0·48), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·36, 0·25-0·52), 3 Fr pancreatic stents (0·47, 0·26-0·87), and rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·60, 0·50-0·73) were all more efficacious than placebo for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in pairwise comparisons. 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·59, 0·41-0·84), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·49, 0·26-0·94), intravenous standard-volume normal saline plus rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·04, 0·00-0·66), and rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·59, 0·40-0·89) were more efficacious than rectal indometacin 100 mg. The GRADE confidence rating was low to moderate for 98·3% of the pairwise comparisons.

INTERPRETATION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarises the available literature on NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal diclofenac 100 mg is the best performing rectal NSAID in this network meta-analysis. Combinations of prophylaxis might be more effective, but there is little evidence. These findings help to establish prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis for future research and practice, and could reduce costs and increase adoption of prophylaxis.

FUNDING

None.

The feasibility of pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent with a 0.025-in. guidewire

Pancreatic duct stenting is a well-established method for reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is no consensus on the optimal type of plastic stent. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new 4-Fr plastic stent for pancreatic duct stenting. Forty-nine consecutive patients who placed the 4-Fr stent into the pancreatic duct (4Fr group) were compared with 187 consecutive patients who placed a conventional 5-Fr stent (control group). The primary outcome was technical success. Complications rate, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce selection bias. The technical success rate was 100% in the 4Fr group and 97.9% in the control group (p = 0.315). Post-ERCP amylase level was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group than the control group before propensity score matching (p = 0.006), though without statistical significance after propensity score matching (p = 0.298). The rate of PEP in the 4Fr group (6.1%) was lower than the control group (15.5%), though without statistical significance before (p = 0.088) and after (p = 1.00) propensity score matching. Pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent would be at least similar or more feasible and safe compared to the conventional plastic stent.

Network meta-analysis of prophylactic pancreatic stents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of moderate-to-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

Seven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002-0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051-0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22-1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18-2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

100 mg rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic stents both significantly reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparison of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between them in high-risk patients is absent. We conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacies of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients and help us decide which is preferred in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was done to identify RCTs published in English full-text. Interventions included 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) and pancreatic stents. Only studies with high-risk patients of PEP were included. Meta-analyses of NSAIDs and pancreatic stents were conducted respectively. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian method was performed.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, 8 on pancreatic stents and 6 on 100 mg rectal NSAIDs in high-risk patients. There was no direct comparison between them. After excluding an outlier study on NSAIDs (n = 144), meta-analyses showed they both significantly and statistically reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients (pancreatic stents: n = 8 studies, random-effects risk ratio (RR)0.41, 95%CI 0.30-0.56, I = 0%; NSAIDs: n = 5 studies, random-effects RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.25-0.54, I = 0%). And network meta-analysis showed efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs was equal to pancreatic stents (random-effects RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.50-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) seems equally significant to pancreatic stents in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. Considering the cost-effectiveness and safety, 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin may be preferred.

Prophylactic efficacy of a novel method against postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether a novel method including prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement prevents postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 200 consecutive patients with bile duct stones measuring up to 8 mm in diameter and retrospectively recruited 113 patients undergoing ordinary endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) without PS placement from our previous study. In the novel method, EPBD and PS placement was attempted with a guidewire left in the main pancreatic duct for patients in whom stable guidewire placement in the main pancreatic duct was possible. EST was performed for patients in whom stable guidewire placement was impossible. The incidence rate of pancreatitis was compared between the novel method and ordinary EPBD, and risk factors for pancreatitis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 194 patients undergoing the novel method, EPBD and EST were performed in 180 and 14 patients, respectively. Following EPBD, PS placement was successful in 177/180 (98.3%) of patients. Pancreatitis occurred in 7/194 (3.6%) of patients after the novel method and 9/113 (8.0%) of patients after ordinary EPBD. There was a trend toward lower incidence rate of pancreatitis in the novel method. Stent dislodgement by the first postoperative morning and no previous endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) were identified as risk factors for pancreatitis after EPBD with PS placement. No previous ENBD was also identified as a risk factor for pancreatitis after ordinary EPBD.

CONCLUSION

Our novel method is likely to be superior to ordinary EPBD in preventing pancreatitis. Previous ENBD may prevent post-EPBD pancreatitis regardless of PS placement.

Feasibility of Temporary Pancreatic Stenting after Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Acute Biliary Pancreatitis

Background/Aims

To assess the safety and effectiveness of temporary pancreatic stenting after early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis regardless of the severity or concomitant cholangitis.

Methods

Temporary pancreatic stenting was performed in 79 patients with visualized pancreatic duct during ERCP. The outcomes of 64 patients with adequate pancreatic stenting (PS) and 15 patients with inadequate pancreatic stenting (no PS) were compared in this prospective, observational trial.

Results

The baseline characteristics were similar. Development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (7.8% for PS vs. 13.3% for no PS; p=0.50) and mortality (none for both groups; p=0.99) did not differ. However, fewer local complications occurred in PS than in no PS (4.7% for PS vs. 20.0% for no PS; p=0.04) and the difference was most outstanding in necrosis (1.6% for PS vs. 13.3% for no PS; p=0.03).

Conclusions

Temporary pancreatic stenting after early ERCP should be considered safe, as complications did not increase even in cases of inadequate stenting. However, if successful, there appears to be a reduction in local complications.

Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail

AIM

To investigate the location to which a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Over a ten-year period at our hospital, 296 patients underwent their first ERCP procedure and had a pancreatic stent inserted; this study included 147 patients who had ERCP performed primarily for biliary investigation and had a pancreatic stent inserted to prevent PEP. We divided these patients into two groups: 131 patients with a stent inserted into the pancreatic head (head group) and 16 patients with a stent inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail (body/tail group). Patient characteristics and ERCP factors were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Pancreatic amylase isoenzyme (p-AMY) levels in the head group were significantly higher than those in the body/tail group [138.5 (7.0-2086) vs 78.5 (5.0-1266.5), P = 0.03] [median (range)]. No cases of PEP were detected in the body/tail group [head group, 12 (9.2%)]. Of the risk factors for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (≥ p-AMY median, 131 IU/L), procedure time ≥ 60 min [odds ratio (OR) 2.65, 95%CI: 1.17-6.02, P = 0.02) and stent insertion into the pancreatic head (OR 3.80, 95%CI: 1.12-12.9, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stent insertion up to the pancreatic body or tail reduces the risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and may reduce the risk of PEP.

Prophylactic rectal indomethacin may be ineffective for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in general patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Efficacy of prophylactic indomethacin for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in general patients remains controversial. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials specifically on rectal indomethacin in prevention of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials on rectal indomethacin in the prevention of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP. Primary outcome was the overall rate of PEP. Secondary outcomes were the overall rates of moderate to severe PEP and mild PEP.

RESULTS

Six studies, with a total of 2473 patients, were included. Overall rate of PEP was 7% (95% CI, 6-9%). No statistical difference was observed in overall rates of PEP (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-1.00, P = 0.050) and, additionally, rates of moderate to severe (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.28-1.56, P = 0.345) or mild (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.10, P = 0.127) PEP between indomethacin and placebo.

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not show significant prevention effect of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Analysis of the risk factors for severity in post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The indication of prophylactic treatments

AIM

To determine the risk factors of severe post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (sPEP) and clarify the indication of prophylactic treatments.

METHODS

At our hospital, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed on 1507 patients from May 2012 to December 2015. Of these patients, we enrolled all 121 patients that were diagnosed with post endoscopic retrograde PEP. Fourteen of 121 patients diagnosed as sPEP were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients had contrast media remaining in the pancreatic duct after completion of ERCP. Seventy-one patients had abdominal pain within three hours after ERCP. These were significant differences for sPEP (P < 0.05). The median of Body mass index, the median time for ERCP, the median serum amylase level of the next day, past histories including drinking and smoking, past history of pancreatitis, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, whether emergency or not, expertise of ERCP procedure, diverticulum nearby Vater papilla, whether there was sphincterotomy or papillary balloon dilation, pancreatic duct cannulation, use of intra-ductal ultrasonography enforcement, and transpapillary biopsies had no significant differences with sPEP.

CONCLUSION

Contrast media remaining in the pancreatic duct and the appearance of abdominal pain within three hours after ERCP were risk factors of sPEP.

Utility of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography on biliopancreatic diseases in patients with Billroth II-reconstructed stomach

AIM

To examine the utility of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) on biliopancreatic diseases in the patients with Billroth II-reconstructed stomach.

METHODS

For 26 cases of biliopancreatic diseases in patients with Billroth II-reconstructed stomach, ERCP was conducted using a straight-view scope or a retrograde oblique-viewing endoscope. All the cases were patients aiming at selective insertion into the bile duct. One patient aimed at diagnosis, and 25 patients aimed at treatment. The cases in which the endoscope reached the duodenal papilla and anastomosis, and insertion into the bile duct became possible, were considered successful.

RESULTS

The rate of reaching the duodenal papilla and anastomosis was 84.7% (22/26 patients). Among the cases without reaching the duodenal papilla and anastomosis, there were 2 in which the endoscope did not pass due to tumor-induced duodenal infiltration. In 1 case, the fiber did not reach the duodenal papilla due to long afferent loop. The success rate of insertion into the bile duct in patients in which the endoscope reached the duodenal papilla and anastomosis was 90.9% (20/22 patients), and the success rate of procedures including treatment was 86.3% (19/22 patients). After treatment, mild cholangitis was observed in 1 patient (4.5%, 1/22 patients) but relieved conservatively. No other accidental symptom was observed.

CONCLUSION

It was considered that the ERCP for biliopancreatic diseases in patients with Billroth II-reconstructed stomach will become a less invasive, safe and useful examination and treatment approach.

The "Scope" of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the potential for clinically significant morbidity and mortality. Several patient and procedural risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Considerable research efforts have identified several pharmacologic and procedural interventions that can drastically affect the incidence of PEP. This review article addresses the underlying mechanisms at play for the development of PEP, identifying patient and procedural risk factors and meaningful use of risk-stratification information, and details current interventions aimed at reducing the risk of this complication.

Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

A comparison of 4-Fr with 5-Fr endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage catheters: A randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage (ENPD) is useful for collecting samples for pancreatic juice cytology and for treating leakage of pancreatic juice and occlusive pancreatitis, placement of the ENPD catheter is associated with complications such as post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). We investigated whether an ENPD catheter with a smaller diameter could reduce the incidence of complications.

METHODS

Patients requiring placement of an ENPD catheter (n = 254) were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of two catheter-size groups: the 4-Fr group or the 5-Fr group. The incidence of PEP, cholangitis, and spontaneous catheter displacement and the suitability of pancreatic juice cytology samples were compared between groups. In addition, univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted on factors associated with PEP.

RESULTS

The incidence of PEP was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group compared with the 5-Fr group (4.1% vs 12.4%, respectively; P = 0.021). The rate of cholangitis and spontaneous catheter displacement and the suitability of pancreatic juice cytology samples did not differ between groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that the risk of PEP was 3.7 times higher when using a 5-Fr catheter than when using a 4-Fr catheter (P = 0.019). In addition, the risk of PEP was 4.1 times higher in patients with an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm than in those without (P = 0.0049) and 4.6 times higher in patients aged <65 than in those aged ≥65 (P = 0.0033).

CONCLUSIONS

A 4-Fr catheter is as useful as a 5-Fr catheter and is associated with a significantly lower incidence of PEP.

The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: A nationwide, register-based study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP.

METHODS

All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates.

RESULTS

Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%; p = 0.0033).

CONCLUSIONS

PS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.

Selective biliary cannulation techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures and prevention of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques have been reported to achieve selective biliary cannulation success. For standard biliary cannulation procedures, the wire-guided cannulation technique has been reported to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and increase the biliary cannulation success rate, although conflicting reports exist. The pancreatic or double-guidewire technique and several precut techniques have been reported as useful techniques in difficult biliary cannulation cases. Although ERCP is a useful endoscopic procedure, the risk of adverse events, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, is inevitable. Previous studies and analyses have revealed the risk factors for PEP. The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing PEP has also been reported. Herein, we reviewed reports in the literature regarding the current status of selective biliary cannulation techniques and PEP prevention.

Prophylactic Efficacy of 3- or 5-cm Pancreatic Stents for Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement is effective for preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). The most effective type of stent, however, remains unclear. Therefore, we prospectively compared the prophylactic efficacy for PEP prevention between short (3 cm) and long (5 cm) pancreatic stent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2012 and June 2014, 240 consecutive patients requiring therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to remove a choledocholith or for bile drainage for obstructive jaundice were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo prophylactic insertion with unflanged, 5 Fr, 3 or 5-cm pancreatic stent. An efficacy of each stent for preventing PEP was evaluated as a primary endpoint. The period until stent dislodgement and the total adverse event rate were also evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Per-protocol analysis revealed that the PEP rate was significantly lower with the short stent than with the long stent (2.0% vs. 8.8%, P=0.035), although they were not significantly different in intention-to-treat analysis. The adverse event rate excluding PEP did not differ significantly between groups (3.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.293). The median period until dislodgement of the short stent was significantly shorter than that of the long stent (2 vs. 4 d, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed a superiority of 3-cm stents compared with 5-cm stents for prophylactic pancreatic stent. On the basis of the past reports and the result of the present study, we recommend using a 5 Fr, 3-cm unflanged stent.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000008290).

Effectiveness of the J-Tip Guidewire for Selective Biliary Cannulation Compared to Conventional Guidewires (The JANGLE Study)

BACKGROUND

Wire-guided cannulation has become a common biliary cannulation technique worldwide. Different guidewires with various tip shapes and materials have been reportedly used for wire-guided cannulation. However, there are apparently no studies reporting changes in the biliary cannulation rate according to the type of guidewire used.

AIMS

We evaluated the effectiveness of the J-tip guidewire for biliary cannulation.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, controlled study involving patients with a native papilla who required biliary cannulation. We allocated the patients to the J-tip guidewire or angled-tip guidewire groups (groups J and A, respectively). If biliary cannulation was not achieved within 10 min, the GW was changed and cannulation was continued.

RESULTS

Groups J and A consisted of 66 and 65 enrolled patients, respectively. The biliary cannulation rate with a single guidewire for the first 10 min was 84.8 % (56/66) for group J and 80.0 % (52/65) for group A. The final success rate for biliary cannulation was 100 % in both groups. The mean times necessary for biliary cannulation were 285.8 and 267.6 s in group J and group A, respectively. The incidence rates of complications (i.e., all mild pancreatitis) were 3.0 % (2/66) and 6.2 % (4/65) in group J and group A, respectively. The mean amylase concentrations were 168.0 and 297.7 IU/L in group J and group A, respectively. There were no significant differences in any results between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The biliary cannulation rate of the J-tip guidewire was not significantly different from those of standard guidewires.

Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety profile of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials of prophylactic PD stent placement after ERCP. RevMan 5 software provided by Cochrane was used for the heterogeneity and efficacy analyses, and a meta-analysis was performed for the data that showed homogeneity. Categorical data are presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and measurement data are presented as weighted mean differences and 95%CIs.

RESULTS

The incidence rates of severe pancreatitis, operation failure, complications and patient pain severity were analyzed. Data on pancreatitis incidence were reported in 14 of 15 trials. There was no significant heterogeneity between the trials (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.93). In the stent group, 49 of the 1233 patients suffered from PEP, compared to 133 of the 1277 patients in the no-stent group. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that it may be possible to prevent PEP by placing a PD stent.

CONCLUSION

PD stent placement can reduce postoperative hyperamylasemia and might be an effective and safe option to prevent PEP if the operation indications are well controlled.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

Revised Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2015: revised concepts and updated points

BACKGROUND

Taking together the recent dramatic changes of the revised Atlanta classification and evidence newly obtained such as the role of step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis, the revision committee of the Japanese (JPN) Guidelines 2015 was prompted to perform an extensive revision of the guidelines.

METHODS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 was compared to the former edition 2010, and revision concepts and major revision points were reviewed. We compared the JPN 2015 with the other two guidelines, International Association of Pancreatology (IAP)/American Pancreas Association (APA) 2013 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2013, in order to clarify the distinct points.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis team conducted a new meta-analysis of four subjects that have been associated with conflicting results. It is apparent that the revised guidelines have been created more systematically and more objectively. As of antibiotics prophylaxis, its use in early phase (within 72 h of onset) for severe acute pancreatitis is recommended in JPN 2015 according to the results of original meta-analysis, whereas the other two guidelines do not recommend its routine use. An approach and management of local complications in necrotizing pancreatitis including infected necrosis are almost similar in the three guidelines. JPN 2015 alone emphasizes the implementation of the pancreatitis bundles that specify the management and treatment within the first 48 h after the onset of severe acute pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

The JPN Guidelines 2015 prove to be the highest quality in terms of systematic literature review conducting original analyses by the meta-analysis team, determining the grading of recommendations and providing pancreatitis bundles.

Precut sphincterotomy: efficacy for ductal access and the risk of adverse events

BACKGROUND

Successful ductal access is achieved in 90% of patients who undergo ERCP. Precut sphincterotomy has been advocated when routine cannulation is not possible.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of precut sphincterotomy for ductal access and the risk of adverse events including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) associated with it.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of ERCP procedures performed from 2002 to 2011.

SETTING

Referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of 10,202 consecutive patients who underwent native cannulation ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy for ductal access and risk of adverse events including PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 706 patients required precut sphincterotomy, 614 of whom (86.9%) had successful biliary cannulation. PEP was diagnosed in 58 (8.2 %), perforation in 6 (0.8%), and bleeding in 49 (6.9%) patients. On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful precut sphincterotomy (odds ratio [OR] 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-4.40; P < .001) and female sex (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.23-3.07; P = .004) were associated with increased risk of the development of adverse events. Female sex (OR 2.42; 95% CI, 1.29-4.55; P = .006) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR 2.77; 95% CI, 1.16-6.60; P = .02) were associated with an increased risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Precut sphincterotomy is effective in achieving ductal access when standard cannulation techniques fail. A successful precut sphincterotomy is not associated with an increased risk of adverse events.

Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether prophylactic administration of nafamostat mesilate reduces the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), its efficacy, and risk factors for PEP.

METHODS

Potential subjects comprised 876 patients who underwent ERCP between September 2008 and February 2011. Of these, 58 patients were excluded after meeting exclusion criteria, and 818 patients were randomized. Patients in the nafamostat mesilate group were administered 20 mg of nafamostat mesilate dissolved in 500 mL of 5% glucose solution, whereas the control group received 500 mL of 5% glucose solution alone, over 2 hours from the start of ERCP.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 5.1% (41 patients) overall, with a significantly lower frequency in the nafamostat mesilate group (3.5%) than in the control group (6.7%; P = 0.0349). Analysis of the 322 patients who had undergone ERCP for the first time (n = 158 in the nafamostat mesilate group; n = 164 in the control group) found that PEP again significantly less frequently occurred in the nafamostat mesilate group (5.7%) than in the control group (13.4%; P = 0.0172).

CONCLUSIONS

Our randomized controlled study suggested that short-term administration of nafamostat mesilate 20 mg may reduce the incidence of PEP.

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement

BACKGROUND

It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.

SETTING

University of Michigan and Indiana University.

PATIENTS

A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS, patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To define the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort.

RESULTS

The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, significantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured.

CONCLUSION

FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These findings highlight the importance of adequate training and proficiency before endoscopists attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases.

Endoscopic prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is not an uncommon adverse event but may be an avoidable complication. Although pancreatitis of severe grade is reported in 0.1%-0.5% of ERCP patients, a serious clinical course may be lethal. For prevention of severe PEP, patient risk stratification, appropriate selection of patients using noninvasive diagnostic imaging methods such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and avoidance of unnecessary invasive procedures, are important measures to be taken before any procedure. Pharmacological prevention is also commonly attempted but is usually ineffective. No ideal agent has not yet been found and the available data conflict. Currently, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used to prevent PEP in high-risk patients, but additional studies using larger numbers of subjects are necessary to confirm any prophylactic effect. In this review, we focus on endoscopic procedures seeking to prevent or decrease the severity of PEP. Among various cannulation methods, wire-guided cannulation, precut fistulotomy, and transpancreatic septostomy are reviewed. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, which is the best-known prophylactic method, is reviewed with reference to the ideal stent type, adequate duration of stent placement, and stent-related complications. Finally, we comment on other treatment alternatives, and make the point that further advances in EUS-guided techniques may afford useful PEP prophylaxis.

Clinical usefulness and current problems of pancreatic duct stenting for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic procedure with high frequency of accidental symptoms, and particularly some patients who develop and aggravate pancreatitis due to the procedure may need treatment of surgery or die. Various attempts were performed so far to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, however, it is impossible to completely prevent pancreatitis at this time because there are various factors for occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. One of the most frequent causes of post-ERCP pancreatitis is considered to be congestion of pancreatic juice associated with duodenal papilledema after examination or treatment. Recently it is often reported that use of a pancreatic duct stent may prevent occurrence of pancreatitis which occurs because of an increased inner pressure of the pancreatic duct caused by congestion of pancreatic juice associated with duodenal papilledema. However, there are some patients who develop pancreatitis even if treated with the pancreatic duct stent, thus further clarification of the pathology and advancement of the prophylactic method will be needed.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for "ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and "post-ERCP pancreatitis". in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of pancreatic stents for preventing pancreatitis in high-risk patients after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify relevant trials published in English. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for suitable studies. Two reviewers independently judged the study eligibility while screening the citations. The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Jadad scoring system. All results were expressed as OR and 95%CI. Data were analyzed using Stata12.0 software.

RESULTS: Ten eligible randomized controlled trials were selected, including 1176 patients. A fixed-effects model in meta-analysis supported that pancreatic duct stents significantly decreased the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients (OR = 0.25; 95%CI: 0.17-0.38; P < 0.001). Pancreatic stents also alleviated the severity of PEP (mild pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.21-0.54; P < 0.001; moderate pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.13-0.67; P = 0.004). The result of severe pancreatitis after ERCP was handled more rigorously (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.05-1.16; P = 0.077). Serum amylase levels were not different between patients with pancreatic stents and control patients (OR = 1.08; 95%CI: 0.82-1.41; P = 0.586).

CONCLUSION: Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents may lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients and alleviate the severity of this condition.

Prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: the endoscopic technique

Pancreatitis is the most frequent and distressing complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many recent studies have reported the use of pharmacological agents to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); however, the most effective agents have not been established. Reduction in the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients has been reported through specific cannulation techniques such as guide wire-assisted cannulation and the use of pancreatic stents. The present review focuses on ERCP techniques for the prevention of PEP.

Clinical usefulness of double-guidewire technique for difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although biliary cannulation with pancreatic guidewire placement (P-GW) is useful for difficult cases in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the clinical significance of wire-guided cannulation with P-GW (double-guidewire technique: DGT) has not been clarified. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the usefulness of DGT for difficult biliary cannulation after unsuccessful biliary cannulation using a cannula/sphincterotome under guidance of injected contrast with P-GW (single-guidewire technique: SGT).

METHODS

One-hundred and forty-six patients with difficult biliary cannulation who underwent SGT were included in this retrospective study. DGT was carried out if SGT was unsuccessful. Pancreatic duct (PD) stenting was attempted to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in all patients. The success rate of cannulation and the risk factors for PEP were investigated.

RESULTS

Biliary cannulation with SGT was achieved in 70%. DGT was carried out in 25 patients with unsuccessful SGT, biliary cannulation being successful in 72%. Of the 13 patients who underwent precut sphincterotomy, biliary cannulation was achieved in 46%. The incidence of PEP in patients who had undergone SGT, DGT, and precut sphincterotomy was 8% (12: mild, 8; moderate, 3; severe, 1), 4% (mild, 1), and 0%, respectively. PD stenting was successfully carried out in 86%. Multivariate analysis revealed unsuccessful PD stenting to be the only risk factor for PEP (OR 8.3, 95% CI 2.3-30).

CONCLUSIONS

DGT may replace SGT or become the salvage procedure in cases of unsuccessful SGT as a result of its high success rate with an acceptable incidence of PEP. Failed pancreatic duct stenting in these techniques was frequently associated with PEP.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for “ERCP” and “pancreatitis” and “post-ERCP pancreatitis”. in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. Previous meta-analyses show that prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement after ERCP is beneficial for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results of these meta-analyses are controversial due to the limited sample size of the eligible studies, in which six additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not included. Our aim is, therefore, to update the current meta-analyses regarding PS placement for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis to identify RCTs comparing PS placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Of the 1,541 patients, 760 patients received a PS and 781 patients were allocated to the control group. PS placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis stratified according to the severity of PEP showed that a PS was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.32-0.62; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.26; 95 %CI 0.09-0.76; P = 0.01). In addition, subgroup analysis performed according to patient selection demonstrated that PS placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that PS placement prevented PEP after ERCP as compared with no PS placement. We therefore recommend PS placement after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.

Improving ERCP quality and decreasing risk to patients and providers

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) continues to be one of the most complex gastrointestinal procedures and carries the highest risk of complications. Optimizing the outcome of ERCP requires a fine balance between the risk and the benefit of every maneuver performed. This fine balance has to include an analysis of the indication for the procedure, the optimal timing, the setting where the procedure is performed, the endoscopist and staff training and expertise, availability of surgical and interventional radiology support, the risk of every maneuver and ways to minimize this risk. As in any other procedure, it is very important to know one's limitations and have a plan for failed procedures including consulting a colleague or referring the patient to a center with more expertise. In addition, a process of quality improvement is integral to every endoscopy center to address areas of underperformance, improve patient care and decrease liability.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are superior to pancreatic duct stents in preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Placement of pancreatic duct (PD) stents prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There is evidence that rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) also prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis, but the 2 approaches alone have not been compared directly. We conducted a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacies of these procedures.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched by 2 independent reviewers to identify full-length clinical studies, published in English, investigating use of PD stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. We identified 29 studies (22 of PD stents and 7 of NSAIDs). We used network meta-analysis to compare rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients who received only rectal NSAIDs, only PD stents, or both.

RESULTS

Placement of PD stents and rectal administration of NSAIDs were each superior to placebo in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The combination of rectal NSAIDs and stents was not superior to either approach alone. Pooled results showed that rectal NSAIDs alone were superior to PD stents alone in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a network meta-analysis, rectal NSAIDs alone are superior to PD stents alone in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, and should be considered first-line therapy for selected patients. However, these findings were limited by the small number of studies assessed (only 29 studies), potential publication bias, and the indirect nature of the comparison. High-quality, randomized, controlled trials are needed to compare these 2 interventions and confirm these findings.

Necessity for endoscopic sphincterotomy for biliary stenting in cases of malignant biliary obstruction

Endoscopic biliary stenting is a useful way to treat distal malignant biliary strictures that are not eligible for surgery. A 10-Fr plastic or metal stent is used for stenting. Typically, endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) has often been carried out as a way to prevent pancreatitis after stent placement given the ease of stent insertion, but EST has flaws such as bleeding and stent migration.The present study describes the need for EST prior to stent placement.

Prophylactic temporary 3F pancreatic duct stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common and serious complication of ERCP. Difficult biliary cannulation can be a procedure-related risk factor for PEP. Recent studies reported that a prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) can reduce the frequency and severity of PEP.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and usefulness of a temporary 3F PS to prevent PEP in patients with difficult biliary cannulations.

DESIGN

A multicenter, prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Two tertiary-care academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

In total, 101 patients with a difficult biliary cannulation were randomly divided into the 3F PS placement group (PS group, n = 50) or the nonstent (NS) group (NS group, n = 51).

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic placement of a 3F unflanged PS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The incidence and severity of PEP in the 2 groups, spontaneous dislodgment of stents, and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

The technical success rate of 3F PS placement was 96% (48/50). The lengths of the stents were 4 cm (n = 21), 6 cm (n = 15), and 8 cm (n = 12). Spontaneous stent dislodgment within 7 days occurred in 94% of patients (45/48). The mean duration until spontaneous dislodgment was 3.5 days. The incidence rate of PEP was 12% (6/50: mild, 5; moderate, 1) in the PS group and 29.4% (15/51: mild, 12; moderate, 2; severe, 1) in the NS group. Severe pancreatitis occurred in only 1 patient in the NS group. In a multivariate analysis, prophylactic placement of PS was the only prophylactic factor for PEP (odds ratio, 0.126; 95% CI, 0.025-0.632, P = .012).

LIMITATIONS

No comparative results for stent size and diameter and a low-risk cohort group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic temporary 3F PS placement in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation during ERCP seems to be a safe and effective method for reducing PEP and results in a high rate of spontaneous passage of stents without complications.

Randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stenting to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM: To determine the effectiveness of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high risk patients.

METHODS: Authors conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent against post-ERCP pancreatitis, including rates of spontaneous dislodgement and complications. Authors defined high risk patients as having any of the following: sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, difficult cannulation, prior history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, pre-cut sphincterotomy, pancreatic ductal biopsy, pancreatic sphincterotomy, intraductal ultrasonography, or a procedure time of more than 30 min. Patients were randomized to a stent group (n = 60) or to a non-stent group (n = 60). An abdominal radiograph was obtained daily to assess spontaneous stent dislodgement. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed according to consensus criteria.

RESULTS: The mean age (± standard deviation) was 67.4 ± 13.8 years and the male: female ratio was 68:52. In the stent group, the mean age was 66 ± 13 years and the male: female ratio was 33:27, and in the non-stent group, the mean age was 68 ± 14 years and the male: female ratio was 35:25. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, gender, final diagnosis, or type of endoscopic intervention. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in PD stent and non-stent groups was 1.7% (1/60) and 13.3% (8/60), respectively. The severity of pancreatitis was mild in all cases. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the stent group was significantly lower than in the non-stent group (P = 0.032, Fisher’s exact test). The rate of hyperamylasemia were 30% (18/60) and 38.3% (23 of 60) in the stent and non-stent groups, respectively (P = 0.05, χ² test). The placement of a PD stent was successful in all 60 patients. The rate of spontaneous dislodgement by the third day was 96.7% (58/60), and the median (range) time to dislodgement was 2.1 (2-3) d. The rates of stent migration, hemorrhage, perforation, infection (cholangitis or cholecystitis) or other complicationss were 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), respectively, in the stent group. Univariate analysis revealed no significant differences in high risk factors between the two groups. The pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent safely prevented post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients.

CONCLUSION: Pancreatic stent placement is a safe and effective technique to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Therefore authors recommend pancreatic stent placement after ERCP in high risk patients.

Impact of technical modification of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasm on the occurrence of complications

AIM

To evaluate the usefulness of a modified technique of endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for lessening the occurrence of complications.

METHODS

Indications for EP were adenoma or well-differentiated adenocarcinoma confined to the papilla of Vater (T1) without tumor spread into the bile/pancreatic duct. Sixteen patients underwent the modified technique, which consists of resection with the Endocut mode, followed by biliary/pancreatic sphincterotomy and stenting (Group A). Twelve patients who had undergone EP, using a cutting current, followed by pancreatic duct stenting were included as control (Group B). The frequency of complications and clinical outcomes were retrospectively compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients had adenoma, and 12 had adenocarcinoma. Early complications occurred in 36% of all patients (hemorrhage, 7; cholangitis, 3; perforation, 2; cholecystitis, 1). The frequency of early complications in Group A was significantly lower than that in Group B (6% vs 75%, odds ratio [OR] 0.022, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0020-0.25). Late complications occurred in 18% of the patients (bile duct stone, 3; hemorrhage, 1; pancreatitis, 1). There was no significant difference in the late complication rate between Group A and Group B (19% vs 17%). Local recurrences were found in 14% of the patients, without a significant difference between Group A and Group B (19% vs 8%) during a mean follow-up period. All recurrent tumors were successfully treated with argon plasma coagulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified technique of EP for ampullary neoplasm contributed to lessening the occurrence of early complications. However, further refinement of this technique is necessary for improving the clinical outcome.