Biliary cannulation with contrast and guide-wire versus exclusive guide-wire: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

Current state of biliary cannulation techniques during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): International survey study

Background and study aims Endoscopist techniques affect biliary cannulation success and the risk of adverse events during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This survey study aims to understand the current practice of biliary cannulation techniques among endoscopists. Methods Practicing endoscopists were sent an anonymous 28-question electronic survey on biliary cannulation techniques and intraprocedural pancreatitis prophylactic strategies. Results The survey was completed by 692 endoscopists (6.2% females). A wire-guided cannulation technique (WGT) was the preferred initial biliary cannulation approach (95%). The preferred secondary approaches were a double-wire (DWT) (65.8%), precut needle-knife technique (NKT) (25.7%), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (5.9%) or other (2.6%). Overall, 18.1% of respondents were not comfortable with NKTs. In the setting of pancreatic duct (PD) access, 81.9% and 97% reported a threshold of three or more wire passes or contrast injections into the PD, respectively, before changing strategy, 34% reported placement of a prophylactic PD stent <50% of the time and 12.1% reported removal of the PD stent at the end of the procedure. Advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) training and high volume (>200 ERCPs per year) were associated with comfort with precut NKTs and likelihood of prophylactic PD stent ( P <0.001 for both). Conclusions A WGT technique followed by the DWT and NKT were the preferred biliary cannulation techniques; however, almost one-fifth of respondents were not comfortable with the NKT. There was considerable variability in secondary cannulation approaches, time spent attempting biliary cannulation and prophylactic PD stent placement, factors known to be associated with cannulation success and adverse outcomes.

Feasibility of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation to remove difficult stones in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend not performing papillary large balloon dilation in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts.

AIM

To assess the feasibility of balloon dilation to remove difficult stones in patients with nondilated distal bile ducts.

METHODS

Data from 1289 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures were obtained from two prospective studies. While 258 cases had difficult stones (> 1 cm, multiple > 8, impacted, or having a thin distal duct), 191 underwent biliary dilation up to 15 mm after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Cholangiographies of these cases were retrospectively reviewed in order to classify the distal bile duct and both the stone size and number. Primary outcomes were clearance rate at first ERCP and complications.

RESULTS

Of the 191 patients (122 women and 69 men; mean age: 60 years) who underwent biliary dilation for difficult stones, 113 (59%) had a nondilated or tapered distal duct. Patients with a dilated distal duct were older than those with nondilated distal ducts (mean 68 and 52 years of age, respectively; P < 0.05), had more stones (median 4 and 2 stones per patient, respectively; P < 0.05), and had less need for additional mechanical lithotripsy (6.4% vs 25%, respectively; P < 0.05). Clearance rate at first ERCP was comparable between patients with a dilated (73/78; 94%) and nondilated distal ducts (103/113; 91%). Procedures were faster in patients with a dilated distal duct (mean 17 vs 24 min, respectively; P < 0.005). Complications were similar in both groups (6.4% vs 7.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Large balloon dilation for difficult stones is feasible in patients with a nondilated or even tapered distal duct.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.