Prophylaxis of ERCP-related pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial of somatostatin and gabexate mesylate

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.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective, randomized, and controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing PEP.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) largely remain unknown with changing trends in ERCP use, indication, and techniques. We sought to determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP in consecutive and high-risk patients based on a systemic review and meta-analysis of patients in placebo and no-stent arms of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from the inception of each database to June 2022 to identify full-text RCTs evaluating PEP prophylaxes. The incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from the placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs were recorded for consecutive and high-risk patients. A random-effects meta-analysis for a proportions model was used to calculate PEP incidence, severity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five RCTs were found with 19,038 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. The overall cumulative incidence of PEP was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.3), predominantly among the academic centers conducting such RCTs. The cumulative incidences of severe PEP and mortality were .5% (95% CI, .3-.7) and .2% (95% CI, .08-.3), respectively, across 91 RCTs with 14,441 patients. The cumulative incidences of PEP and severe PEP were 14.1% (95% CI, 11.5-17.2) and .8% (95% CI, .4-1.6), respectively, with a mortality rate of .2% (95% CI, 0-.3) across 35 RCTs with 3733 patients at high risk of PEP. The overall trend for the incidence of PEP among patients randomized to placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs has remained unchanged from 1977 to 2022 (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PEP is 10.2% but is 14.1% among high-risk patients based on this systematic review of placebo or no-stent arms of 145 RCTs; this rate has not changed between 1977 and 2022. Severe PEP and mortality from PEP are relatively uncommon.

Effect of Adding Intravenous Somatostatin to Rectal Indomethacin on Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients: A Double-blind Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has an important role in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary disorders.

GOALS

Considering the high prevalence and importance of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and the controversial findings, we aimed to determine the effect of adding intravenous somatostatin to rectal indomethacin on the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients.

STUDY

In this prospective study, 530 patients underwent ERCP during March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. The intervention group received a bolus injection of 250 μg somatostatin followed by an infusion of 500 μg of somatostatin for 2 hours. In both groups, 100 mg of pre-ERCP suppository indomethacin was administrated. All patients were screened for PEP symptoms and signs for 24 hours after ERCP (Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials code: IRCT20080921001264N11).

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were finally analyzed. PEP was the most common adverse event with 50 (13.2%) episodes, including 21 (5.5%) mild, 23 (6.1%) moderate, and 6 (1.2%) severe. The rate of PEP was 15.2% in the control group and 11.4% in the intervention group ( P =0.666). The incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia was 21.7% in the control group and 18.2% in the intervention group ( P =0.395). No death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study administration of somatostatin plus indomethacin could safely reduce the rate of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and PEP in the intervention group compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Fistulotomy versus standard cannulation as the primary technique for all patients undergoing ERCP with a native papilla: a protocol for a single center randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an indispensable procedure for the management of pancreaticobiliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common serious adverse event. One risk factor of PEP is difficulty achieving biliary access. The conventional ERCP technique involves the cannulation of the bile duct via the ampulla of Vater, followed by sphincter incision using electrocautery. Conventionally, if the standard method fails then, precut techniques have been utilized as an alternative means of gaining biliary access. The needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) technique involves identifying the intra-duodenal segment of the bile duct and uses a needle knife to incise directly into the bile duct. This is done above and away from the natural office, thus minimizing thermal damage which may result in PEP. Our recent prospective study of 50 patients demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the NKF precut technique as a primary means of gaining biliary access. The next step is to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of initial NKF to the standard cannulation in a non-selective patient population undergoing ERCP.

Methods

A randomized control trial of 538 consecutive, non-selective patients with pancreaticobiliary disease undergoing ERCP at a tertiary care center in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, will be conducted. Patients will be randomized to one of two treatment groups, standard cannulation or NKF. The primary outcome of the study will be the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes will include rate of successful cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), time to successful cannulation, total procedure time, difficulty of cannulation, and incidence of complications.

Discussion

This RCT will yield important answers regarding the efficacy and safety of initial NKF to the standard cannulation in a non-selective patient population undergoing ERCP. The results of our study could alter ERCP practices and outcomes if NKF is shown to reduce PEP risk.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04559867. Registered on September 23, 2020

Emerging Therapies to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to evaluate emerging, novel therapies for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis in low- and average-risk patients, who comprise the majority of patients undergoing ERCP. An 8-h protocol of aggressive lactated Ringer's reduces the risk of pancreatitis in average-risk patients. Sublingual nitrate may provide additional benefit to rectal NSAIDs in preventing PEP. A tacrolimus trough > 2.5 ng/mL was recently shown to be associated with a lower risk of PEP in liver transplant patients undergoing ERCP. Routine usage of rectal indomethacin in all patients undergoing ERCP reduces the risk of PEP. Pancreatic-duct stents reduce the risk of PEP in high-risk patients. There is emerging data that aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's and nitrates may further reduce PEP. Tacrolimus is a promising potential agent to prevent PEP but needs further clinical study.

Fistulotomy-First Approach is Safe and Effective in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: Results of a Prospective Case Series

Background and Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of using needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) as a primary cannulation technique in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with a native papilla.

Patients and Methods

This prospective feasibility study enrolled 50 patients between December 2018 and June 2019. The procedure was performed by two expert endoscopists (R.B. and L.H.). The primary outcome was the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Other variables assessed included the success rate of cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), time to successful cannulation, and incidence of adverse events.

Results

Between December 2018 and June 2019, 50 patients enrolled in the study. The mean age was 63.4 years (standard deviation 18.1), and there were 26 females. Indications included biliary obstruction secondary to malignancy (n = 14) and choledocholithiasis (n = 36). Successful cannulation of the CBD through the fistulotomy occurred in 49/50 cases. The time to successful cannulation was 5.1 minutes (range 0.5 to 23 minutes). Mild acute pancreatitis occurred in two cases (4%). Post-ERCP bleeding occurred in three patients (6%)

Conclusions

In this pilot study, NKF was used as the primary biliary access technique and it was demonstrated that it appears to be at least as safe as the traditional access technique with a sphinctertome. However, its role as a primary cannulation technique requires further investigation with multicenter, randomized control studies.

Comparative Efficacy of 9 Major Drugs for Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most common complications after ERCP. The optimal drugs for reducing the risk of PEP are still unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 9 major drugs used worldwide for the prevention of PEP through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the literature up to October 2018 on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing allopurinol, diclofenac, gabexate (GAB), glyceryl trinitrate (GTN), indomethacin, nafamostat, octreotide, somatostatin, and ulinastatin for protection against PEP were included.

RESULTS

Eighty-six randomized controlled trials involving 25,246 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Results indicated that diclofenac, GAB, GTN, indomethacin, somatostatin, and ulinastatin were more effective than placebo with odds ratios ranging between 0.48 (95% credible interval, 0.26-0.86) for GAB and 0.61 (0.39-0.94) for somatostatin. However, allopurinol, nafamostat, and octreotide showed similar efficacy as placebo in reducing the risk of PEP. No significant differences were found in the efficacy between diclofenac, GAB, GTN, indomethacin, somatostatin, and ulinastatin. In terms of prognosis, GAB may be the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=70.6%) and the least effective was octreotide (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=28%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our analysis suggests that GAB may be the most effective drug in preventing PEP, the limitations of our study warrants more high-quality head-to-head trials of these clinical drugs in the future.

Preventative Effect of Nafamostat Mesilate Infusion into the Main Pancreatic Duct on Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a Porcine Model: Initial Pilot Study

Background and Aim: Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis is not an uncommon adverse event but may not be avoidable. Various pharmacological and endoscopic techniques have been used to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), but most have been ineffective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventative effect of an intrapancreatic duct injection of nafamostat mesilate (NM) on PEP. Methods: This experimental study was conducted on 8 mini pigs. Animals were randomly allocated to a control group (n = 4) and or a NM group (n = 4). Pancreatitis was induced by infusing contrast medium into the main pancreatic duct by ERCP in all animals. After contrast medium injection, NM (50 mg/5 cc) was infused in the NM group and the same amount of 5% dextrose solution was infused in the control group. Twenty-four hours after endoscopic procedures, pancreatic inflammation, edema, vacuolization, necrosis and hemorrhage were evaluated histologically. Results: All animals survived until the end of the experiment. No peri-procedural technical difficulty or adverse event was encountered. Histologic examinations confirmed acute pancreatitis in all animals. In histologic acute pancreatitis scoring, no significant intergroup differences were observed between edema (P = 0.134), leukocyte infiltration (P = 0.356), vacuolization (P = 1.000), or hemorrhage (P = 0.071) scores. However, mean necrosis score was significantly lower in the NM group (1.0) than in controls (1.75, P = 0.024). Conclusion: NM injection into the intrapancreatic duct produced promising results with respect to the prevention of PEP development, especially regarding the prevention of necrosis.

Effect of somatostatin on prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a meta-analysis of all available studies on the effect of prophylactic somatostatin administration on prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA).

METHODS

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and the Science Citation Index were searched to retrieve relevant trials. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients that compared somatostatin versus placebo in prevention of PEP were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to assess the ratios of PEP, PEHA and post-ERCP abdominal pain.

RESULTS

Total ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. For the short-term injection or bolus injection there were no heterogeneity and no significance between the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group and placebo group. For the long-term injection subgroup there was heterogeneity, and the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. There was no significance between the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group and placebo group for the low-risk PEP subgroup, while the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the high-risk PEP subgroup. The ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the long-term injection high-risk PEP subgroup. There was no significance between the ratio of PEHA of somatostatin group and placebo group for the short-term injection subgroup or bolus injection subgroup. The ratio of PEHA of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the long-term injection subgroup. The total ratio of post-ERCP abdominal pain of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. The funnel plot of incidence of PEP and PEHA showed no asymmetry with a negative slope.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of long-term injection of somatostatin can significantly reduce the incidence of PEP, PEHA and post-ERCP abdominal pain for the high-risk PEP patients, while it is not necessary to be used for the low-risk PEP patients.

Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERPC) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication which needs special care and clinical practice guideline for this morbidity is also needed.

METHODS

The key clinical issues of diagnosis and treatment of PEP were listed and checked, and then the clinical questions were formulated. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ichushi-web (Japanese medical literature) were used as databases. For the study of diagnostic test accuracy, items similar to QUADAS-2, i.e., random selection from a population to which the diagnostic test is applied, blinding of index tests and reference tests, completeness of reference standard, completeness of test implementations, the same timing of tests, and missing data were assessed as well as the indirectness of the study subjects, index tests, reference standard, and outcomes. Grading of recommendations was determined as strong or weak. In clinical practice, the judgment of attending doctors should be more important than recommendations described in clinical practice guidelines. Gastroenterologists are the target users of this clinical practice guideline. General practitioners or general citizens are not supposed to use this guideline. The guideline committee has decided to include wide clinical issues such as etiological information, techniques of ERCP, the diagnosis, treatments, and monitoring of PEP in this guideline.

RESULTS

In this concise report, we described ten clinical questions, recommendations, and explanations pertaining to risk factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, treatments, and preventive interventions in the medical practice for PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

We reported here the essence of the clinical practice guideline for PEP.

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.

Role of Somatostatin in Preventing Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis: An Update Meta-analysis

Background: Acute pancreatitis is the most common serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Although, somatostatin (SOM) has been used in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), the efficacy of SOM remains inconsistent.

Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), and the Science Citation Index were searched to retrieve relevant studies. Details of the study population, including patients’ characteristics, sample size, regimen of drug administration and incidence of PEP, hyperamylasemia and abdominal pain were extracted by two investigators. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 software.

Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials, enrolling a total of 4192 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. After data were pooled, we observed decreased incidence of ERCP-induced outcomes, such as PEP (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40, 0.98; P = 0.04) and hyperamylasemia (RR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66, 0.84; P < 0.001) in patients treated with SOM than those with placebo. Subgroup analysis by ethnicity found decreased incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia in Asia only. Subgroup analysis by treatment schedule and dosage revealed decreased incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia when SOM were treated with a single bolus or long-term infusion, or at dose above 3000 μg. We did not observed efficacy of SOM on abdominal pain in pooled or subgroup analysis.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis of patients undergoing ERCP showed reduced incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia when SOM was administrated with single bolus, long-term infusion, or high dosage. More data are needed to confirm our findings.

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.

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Medications and Techniques

Over the past 2 decades, it increasingly has been recognized that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most predictable provocateur of acute pancreatitis, with an incidence of more than 15% in high-risk patients. For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the effect of periprocedural drug administration as well as different ERCP techniques on both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Although many agents and techniques have shown promise in small clinical studies, the majority of these have failed to yield consistent benefit in larger randomized patient groups. This review summarizes the data on medications and ERCP techniques that have been studied for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

A Randomized Comparative Study of 24- and 6-Hour Infusion of Nafamostat Mesilate for the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although prolonged intravenous infusion (24 hours) of nafamostat mesilate is effective for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it requires hospitalization and is expensive. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 24- versus 6-hour intravenous infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 382 patients who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned into 2 groups: 24 hours or 6 hours. In both groups, nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) infusion was initiated up to an hour before ERCP and continued for either 24 or 6 hours.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 2.4% (9/371). The rates of PEP following 24- and 6-hour infusion were 2.8% (5/179) and 2.1% (4/192), respectively (P = 0.744). No significant difference was observed in the severity of pancreatitis between the groups. On multivariate analysis, increasing pancreatic duct cannulations (odds ratio, 1.685; 95% confidence interval, 1.036-2.741; P = 0.036) was identified as a statistically significant risk factor of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the incidence of PEP regardless of the duration of nafamostat mesilate infusion. Therefore, 6-hour infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate may be useful for the prevention of PEP in an outpatient setting.

Aggressive hydration with Lactated Ringer's solution as the prophylactic intervention for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A randomized controlled double-blind clinical trial

Background:

Pancreatitis is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and may cause significant morbidity and even death. There is no effective prophylactic intervention for patients with average risk yet. This study aims to investigate preventive effect of aggressive hydration for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Materials and Methods:

In a double-blind controlled setting, 150 patient were randomly assigned to receive either aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's solution (3 mL/kg/h during ERCP, followed by a 20 mL/kg bolus and 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h after the procedure, n = 75) or standard amount of hydration (1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 h after ERCP, n = 75). Patients were observed for volume overload as well as pancreatic pain and serum levels of amylase at baseline and 2, 8, and 24 h after ERCP. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as hyperamylasemia (level of amylase >300) and pancreatic pain during the 24 h follow-up. Hyperamylasemia and pancreatic pain were the secondary end points.

Results:

Mean age of the patients was 50.8 ± 13.5 years. Most of the patients were female (66%). Pancreatitis developed in 21 patients, including 22.7% of patients receiving standard hydration and 5.3% patients receiving aggressive hydration (P = 0.002). Hyperamylasemia was detected in 44.0% of patients receiving standard hydration and 22.7% of patients aggressive hydration (P = 0.006). The pancreatic pain was reported by 5.3% of patients receiving aggressive hydration and 37.3% of patients receiving standard hydration (P ≤ 0.005).

Conclusion:

Aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's solution may effectively prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis as well as hyperamylasemia and pancreatic pain in patients with average risk.

Oral udenafil and aceclofenac for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a randomized multicenter study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Combination therapy w ith ora l udenafil and aceclofenac may reduce the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis by targeting different pathophysiological mechanisms. We investigated whether combining udenafil and aceclofenac reduced the rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study was conducted in four academic medical centers. Between January 2012 and June 2013, a total of 216 patients who underwent ERCP were analyzed for the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were determined to be at high risk for pancreatitis based on validated patient and procedure-related risk factors.

RESULTS

Demographic features, indications for ERCP, and therapeutic procedures were similar in each group. There were no significant differences in the rate (15.8% [17/107] vs. 16.5% [18/109], p = 0.901) and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis between the udenafil/aceclofenac and placebo groups. One patient in each group developed severe pancreatitis. Multivariate analyses indicated that suspected dysfunction of the sphincter of Oddi and endoscopic papillary balloon dilation without sphincterotomy were associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with udenafil and aceclofenac is not effective for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched until April 18, 2014.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 2956 patients met the search criteria. When compared with nonnafamostat, the incidence of PEP was reduced to 53% in the patients who received nafamostat (risk ratio [RR], 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.63). Further analyses were conducted based on the different risk classifications (n = 641 in patients with high risks: RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96 and n = 944 with low risks: RR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17-0.56), PEP severities (n = 1654: RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.25-0.59 for mild; RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.96 for moderate; RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.13-6.38 for severe), and nafamostat doses (n = 1902: RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28-0.63 for 20 mg; n = 1150: RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25-0.63 for 50 mg). However, there was no reduction of the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.68-1.45) or cannulation difficulty (n = 1585; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23).

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled analyses from current randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of nafamostat for prophylaxis of PEP.

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.

Prophylactic effect of somatostatin in preventing Post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Somatostatin is regarded as a prophylactic agent on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), but studies are still controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, meeting abstracts and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for further relevant studies.

RESULTS

Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enrolling a total of 2869 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. After data were pooled from somatostatin trials, PEP occurred in 8.36% of controls versus 5.62% of the treated group, with a slight significance [relative risk (RR) =0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.98, P = 0.04]. The funnel plot showed no asymmetry with a negative slope (P = 0.108). The meta-analysis produced negative results for short-term infusion of somatostatin (RR = 1.40, 95% CI 0.93-2.12, P = 0.11), whereas a bolus or long-term injection of the drug proved effective (RR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.13-0.47,P < 0.0001; RR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.27-0.71,P = 0.0008). Postprocedure hyperamylasemia and pain was also observed in the meta-analysis, the pooled RR was significant for reduced risk of postprocedure hyperamylasemia (RR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.63 to 0.81,P < 0.00001), but not for the pain (RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.08,P= 0.10).

CONCLUSION

The current meta-analysis on the prophylactic use of somatostatin in patients undergoing ERCP documents a lack of benefit when given as short-term infusion, but showed an advantage of a single bolus or long-term injection. The beneficial effect of somatostatin, in reducing the incidence of postprocedural hyperamylasemia seems of marginal clinical significance. However, more new confirmatory data are needed to settle residual doubts.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP.

SETTING

Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis.

PATIENTS

Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Effect of diclofenac on the levels of lipoxin A4 and Resolvin D1 and E1 in the post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Numerous studies have shown that administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the incidence of acute pancreatitis after ERCP. Little is known, however, about the mechanism of NSAIDs in preventing pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

In this study, we assigned patients to receive a single dose of intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg immediately after ERCP (diclofenac group) or without (control group). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of PEP. The serum amylase levels were measured before ERCP and at 3 and 24 h post-procedure in all patients. The Lipoxin A4 (LXA4), Resolvin D1 (Rvd1), and Resolvin E1 (RvE1) levels were measured before ERCP, and 3 and 24 h after the procedure in 30 patients from the diclofenac group and 30 patients from the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled and completed the follow-up. The overall incidence of PEP was 13.3% (16/120). It occurred in four of 60 patients (6.67%) in the diclofenac group and in 12 of 60 patients (20.00%) in the control group (p = 0.032). The LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1 levels in the diclofenac group at 3 h after ERCP were significantly increased compared with before ERCP (p < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1 levels in the diclofenac group at 3 and 24 h after ERCP were significantly increased (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular diclofenac after ERCP can reduce the incidence of PEP. This may be related to the fact that diclofenac can increase the levels of LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1.

Somatostatin administration prior to ERCP is effective in reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients

Somatostatin has been extensively studied for the prophylaxis of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the results remain controversial. The present retrospective cohort study aimed to investigate the efficacy of pre- and post-ERCP somatostatin administration in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). All ERCP procedures performed at one hospital between January 2009 and December 2012 were reviewed. They were divided into three groups based on somatostatin administration: pre-ERCP som group (somatostatin administration: 0.25 mg/h for 24 h, starting 1 h prior to ERCP), post-ERCP som group (somatostatin administration: 0.25 mg/h for 24 h, starting immediately following ERCP), and control group (no somatostatin administration). Out of a total of 304 cases, 81 received pre-ERCP somatostatin; 126 received post-ERCP somatostatin and 97 were not administered somatostatin. Pre-ERCP somatostatin was effective in reducing the incidence of PEP compared with that in the control group (4.9 vs. 16.5%; P=0.017). This benefit was significant in high-risk patients (8.9 vs. 26.0%; P=0.035), but not in low-risk patients (0 vs. 6.4%; P=0.254). Post-ERCP somatostatin was not effective in preventing PEP in high- or low-risk patients. In conclusion, pre-ERCP somatostatin may be effective in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, but not in low-risk patients. Post-ERCP somatostatin did not reveal a benefit in high- or low-risk patients. However, large randomized controlled trials are required to further confirm these findings.

Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review of clinical trials with a large sample size in the past 10 years

BACKGROUND

Post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common and most severe complication associated with diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. A multivariate analysis of risk factors for PEP is essential for identifying patients at high risk and subsequently choosing other suitable diagnoses.

METHODS

Pertinent publications were identified through systematic searches of MEDLINE, Elsevier, and Springer; we performed a systematic review of 12 clinical studies published in the past ten years, selected out of 451 reviewed articles, in which risk factors for pancreatitis were identified. Seven probable risk factors were evaluated, and outcomes expressed in the case of dichotomous variables, as an odds ratio (OR) (with a 95% confidence interval, 95% CI).

RESULTS

When the risk factors were analyzed, the OR for female gender was 1.40 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.58); the OR for previous PEP was 3.23 (95% CI 2.48 to 4.22); the OR for previous pancreatitis was 2.00 (95% CI 1.72 to 2.33); the OR for endoscopic sphincterotomy was 1.42 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.78); the OR for precut sphincterotomy was 2.11 (95% CI 1.72 to 2.59); the OR for Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction was 4.37 (95% CI 3.75 to 5.09); and the OR for non-prophylactic pancreatic duct stent was 2.10 (95% CI 1.63 to 2.69).

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that female gender, previous PEP, previous pancreatitis, endoscopic sphincterotomy, precut sphincterotomy, Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and non-prophylactic pancreatic duct stent are the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Gabexate mesylate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis update

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and the benefit of pharmacologic treatment of the condition is unclear. Although prophylactic use of gabexate mesylate (GM) for the reduction of pancreatic injury after ERCP has been evaluated, uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of GM treatment in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine through systematic review and meta-analysis the effectiveness and tolerability of GM in the prophylaxis of PEP.

METHODS

MEDLINE (January 1966-July 2007), EMBASE (January 1966- July 2007), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register on The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2007), and the China Biological Medicine Database (January 1978-July 2007) were searched. We used the method recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of GM in the prevention of PEP.

RESULTS

Of the 38 studies identified, 31 were excluded for the following reasons: they were reviews or editorials (9 articles); were meta-analyses (4); had differences in cointerventions (4); were nonrandomized controlled trials or had incorrect randomization (4); were repeat publications (2); lacked a placebo group (1); or other (7). Seven RCTs, totaling 2883 patients, conducted in a variety of languages were included in the meta-analysis. When the RCTs were analyzed, odds ratios for GM were 0.65 (95% CI, 0.36-1.18; P 0.16) for PER 1.90 (95% CI, 0.54-6.65; P 0.32) for severe PEP, 0.55 (95% CI, 0.17-1.77; P 0.32) for the case-fatality ratio of PEP, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.74-1.05; P 0.16) for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.49 1.25; P 0.30) for post-ERCP abdominal pain. No evidence of publication bias was found.

CONCLUSIONS

No beneficial effects of GM on acute pancreatitis, the PEP mortality rate, or post-ERCP abdominal pain or hyperamylasemia were found; therefore, GM cannot be recommended for the prophylaxis of PEP.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in a meta-analysis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of ERCP. Several meta-analyses have examined the effects of protease inhibitors (gabexate mesilate, ulinastatin, and nafamostat mesilate) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on post-ERCP pancreatitis, but the results have been confusing. Since the previous meta-analysis, several new studies have been published on this topic. To provide an updated quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials for patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Twenty-six articles were included in this meta-analysis. Nafamostat mesilate (summary RR = 0.41; 95 %CI 0.28-0.59; n = 4 studies) and NSAIDs (summary RR = 0.58; 95 %CI = 0.44-0.76; n = 7 studies) were associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. However, gabexate mesilate (summary RR = 0.64; 95 %CI = 0.36-1.13; n = 6 studies) and ulinastatin (summary RR = 0.65; 95 %CI = 0.33-1.30; n = 2 studies) were not associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. This is the first meta-analysis to compare the effects of three protease inhibitors. Solid evidence supports the use of nafamostat mesilate and NSAIDs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of many pharmacological agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but it is unclear which agent(s) should be used in clinical practice. Network meta-analyses of RCTs are used to simultaneously compare several agents to determine their relative efficacy and identify priority agents for comparison in future RCTs.

AIM

To evaluate pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP by conducting a network meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of agents for preventing PEP. RCTs were simultaneously analysed using random-effects network meta-analysis under the Bayesian framework to identify the best agents. The efficacy of agents was ordered according to the probability of being ranked as any of the top three best performing agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 99 RCTs evaluating 16 agents in 25 313 patients. Topical epinephrine (adrenaline) was the most efficacious agent with 85.9% probability of ranking among the top three agents, followed by nafamostat (51.4%), antibiotics (44.5%) and NSAIDs (42.8%). However, in a sensitivity analysis including only rectal NSAIDs, NSAIDs moved from fourth rank to second (58.1%). Patients receiving topical epinephrine, compared with placebo, had a 75% reduced risk of PEP (OR 0.25, 95% probability interval 0.06-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical epinephrine and rectal NSAIDs are the most efficacious agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on existing RCTs. Combinations of these agents, which act on different steps in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, should be evaluated in future trials.

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ulinastatin for prevention of hyperenzymemia after double balloon endoscopy via the antegrade approach

BACKGROUND

Double balloon endoscopy (DBE) allows the entire small intestine to be viewed using a combination of antegrade and retrograde approaches. Acute pancreatitis is a serious complication of antegrade DBE with no effective prophylactic treatment currently available. Ulinastatin has been shown to be effective for the prevention of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. We therefore assessed the efficacy of ulinastatin for hyperenzymemia after antegrade DBE.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-four patients were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients in the ulinastatin group received 150 000 U ulinastatin by i.v. drip infusion for 2 h from the start of the procedure. Serum concentrations of pancreatic amylase and lipase were measured before and 3 and 18 h after antegrade DBE.

RESULTS

The study was terminated after interim analysis. Of the 44 patients, 23 were randomized to ulinastatin and 21 to placebo.The groups were similar with regard to sex ratio, age, type of endoscope, insertion time, total procedure time, number of endoscope pull-back procedures, and baseline pancreaticamylase and lipase concentrations. Post-DBE hyperenzymemia was observed in 35.0% and 47.8% of patients in the placebo and ulinastatin groups, respectively. The higher frequency of hyperenzymemia in the ulinastatin group was unexpected, but the difference was not statistically significant. One patient in the placebo group (5.0%) and none in the ulinastatin group experienced acute pancreatitis, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The results of this trial suggest that ulinastatin does not prevent hyperenzymemia following antegrade DBE.

The use of gabexate mesylate and ulinastatin for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

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.

Impact of introduction of wire-guided cannulation in therapeutic biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Wire-guided cannulation (WGC) might increase the biliary cannulation rate and decrease the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). We assessed the learning curve for WGC in therapeutic biliary ERCP (study 1) and compared WGC and conventional contrast-assisted cannulation (CC) by a matched case-control study (study 2).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 500 therapeutic biliary ERCP cases (250 consecutive cases of WGC and 250 matched controls of CC) were retrospectively studied. Rate and time of biliary cannulation, total procedure time, PEP, and hyperamylasemia were analyzed.

RESULTS

In study 1, biliary cannulation by WGC was successful in 96% of the first 50 cases, with a median time to cannulation of 3 min. Rates of hyperamylasemia were within 10% after 100 WGC. In study 2, there were no significant differences in the overall cannulation rate and PEP between WGC and CC, but the total procedure time was shorter in WGC (30 vs 35 min, P = 0.059). Rates of hyperamylasemia and the change in serum amylase levels was lower (9% vs 14%, P = 0.069, and + 62.8 U/L vs+ 169.5 U/L, P = 0.043) in WGC, which was more prominent in experienced endoscopists (9% vs 17%, P = 0.025, and + 68.9 U/L vs+ 229.3 U/L, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of WGC was effective in the first 50 cases and did not increase the rate of PEP in biliary therapeutic ERCP.

Use of udenafil is not associated with a reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

Udenafil, a phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor, may decrease sphincter of Oddi tone and allow efficient cannulation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether prophylactic udenafil reduces the rates of occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study.

SETTING

Three academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

From November 2008 to November 2010, a total of 278 patients who underwent ERCP were analyzed.

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

Rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Demographic features, indications for ERCP, and therapeutic procedures were similar in each group. The overall rate of pancreatitis was 7.9% (22/278). There was no significant difference in the rate (8.0% [11/137] vs 7.8% [11/141], P = .944) and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis between the udenafil and placebo groups. Severe pancreatitis developed in 1 patient in the placebo group. On both univariate and multivariate analyses, age 40 years or younger, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, complete pancreatic duct opacification, and failed cannulation were associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Only mild udenafil-related complications occurred, including flushing (n = 3) and headache (n = 3).

LIMITATIONS

Unselected patient group, overestimation of the rate of pancreatitis in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Udenafil was not effective for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in this study. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

KCT0000021.).

Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. It can be associated with substantial morbidity. Hence, the minimization of both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis is paramount. Considerable efforts have been made to identify factors that may be associated with an increased risk of this complication. In addition, both procedure- and pharmacological-related interventions have been proposed that may prevent this complication. This paper outlines these interventions and presents the evidence to support their use in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Intravenous synthetic secretin reduces the incidence of pancreatitis induced by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether synthetic secretin is effective in reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

METHODS

This is a single academic medical center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using secretin (dose of 16 μg) administered intravenously immediately before ERCP. Patients were evaluated for the primary outcome of post-ERCP pancreatitis as diagnosed by a single investigator.

RESULTS

A total of 1100 patients were screened, of whom 869 were randomly assigned to receive secretin (n = 426) or placebo (n = 443) before ERCP and were evaluated after the procedure for efficacy of secretin. The incidence of pancreatitis in the secretin group compared with the placebo group was 36 (8.7%) of 413 patients versus 65 (15.1%) of 431 patients, respectively, P = 0.004. In the subgroup analysis, secretin was highly protective against post-ERCP pancreatitis for patients undergoing biliary sphincterotomy (6/129 vs 32/142, P < 0.001), patients undergoing cannulation of the common bile duct (26/339 vs 56/342, P < 0.001), and patients not undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy (26/388 vs 57/403, P = 0.001). Analysis of the interaction between these groups reveals that the primary effect of secretin prophylaxis was prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing biliary sphincterotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Synthetic secretin reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis, particularly in patients in undergoing biliary sphincterotomy.

Protease inhibitors for preventing complications associated with ERCP: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The prophylactic use of protease inhibitors in patients undergoing ERCP is still controversial. Our purpose was to evaluate the efficacy of protease inhibitors in preventing ERCP-associated complications.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-analysis; randomized trials that evaluated the efficacy of protease inhibitors were identified.

PATIENTS

A total of 4966 patients were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ERCP-associated pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, abdominal pain, and death.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies (19 cohorts) met the inclusion criteria. Overall results for protease inhibitors showed a significant but small risk reduction in ERCP-associated pancreatitis (pooled risk difference [RD]: -0.029; 95% CI, -0.051 to -0.008 and the number needed to treat, 34.5; 95% CI, 19.6-125). Subgroup analysis in 8 high-quality studies showed a borderline significant efficacy (pooled RD, -0.027; 95% CI, -0.051 to -0.004). Subgroup analysis in 8 gabexate studies did not show significant efficacy (pooled RD, -0.030; 95% CI, -0.062 to 0.003). Subgroup analysis in 5 ulinastatin studies was significant (pooled RD, -0.035; 95% CI, -0.063 to -0.006). Two high-quality studies on ulinastatin yielded nonsignificant results. Analyses for the other outcomes were all nonsignificant. Sensitivity analysis showed that the effect size and level of statistical significance were decreased with increasing study quality.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no solid evidence to support the use of protease inhibitors to prevent ERCP-associated complications. Although overall and ulinastatin subgroup analyses showed a small risk reduction for pancreatitis, it seems very possible that low-quality primary studies produced a veneer of efficacy.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatitis is the most common major complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Efforts have been made to identify pharmacologic agents capable of reducing its incidence and severity. The aim of this trial was to determine whether prophylactic nafamostat mesilate, a synthetic protease inhibitor, would reduce the frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

A total of 286 patients were randomized to receive either intravenous nafamostat mesilate or placebo 60 minutes before ERCP and for 6 hours after ERCP. A database was prospectively collected by a defined protocol. Standardized criteria were used to diagnose and grade the severity of pancreatitis.

RESULTS

The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics and to patient and procedure risk factors for pancreatitis. The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 5.9%. It occurred in 4 (2.8%) of 143 patients in the nafamostat group and in 13 (9.1%) of 143 patients in the control group (P = 0.03). Pancreatitis was graded mild in 2.1% and moderate in 0.7% of the nafamostat group and mild in 7.0% and moderate in 2.1% of the control group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the severity of pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intravenous nafamostat mesilate reduces the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Meta-analysis: somatostatin or its long-acting analogue, octreotide, for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a most serious complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Previous meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials have shown conflicting results regarding the preventive efficacy of somatostatin or octreotide for this complication. The aim of this study was to resolve these conflicts.

METHODS

A standardized comprehensive literature search was performed through September 2009. Depending on heterogeneity of outcomes, either random-effects model (REM) or fixed-effects model (FEM) was applied to calculate pooled estimates of drug efficacy.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, including 3818 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Analysis of somatostatin and octreotide trials showed that these drugs prevented post-ERCP pancreatitis (pooled risk ratio [95% confidence interval; CI], 0.63 [0.42-0.96] in REM. Pooled risk ratios [95% CI] of each subgroup were: 0.52 [0.30-0.90] for somatostatin in REM; 0.30 [0.17-0.53] for high-dose somatostatin infused over 12 h in FEM; 0.27 [0.13-0.52] for bolus somatostatin in FEM; 0.35 [0.15-0.82] for pancreatic duct (PD) injection with somatostatin in FEM; 0.33 [0.16-0.70] for biliary sphincterotomy (BS) with somatostatin in FEM; 0.53 [0.24-1.17] for intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis with somatostatin in REM; 0.42 [0.20-0.90] for high-dose octreotide in FEM; 0.61 [0.27-1.35] for PD injection with octreotide in FEM; 0.64 [0.32-1.29] for BS with octreotide in FEM; and 0.83 [0.34-2.03] for ITT analysis with octreotide in REM.

CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin and high-dose octreotide may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. The preventive efficacy of somatostatin is more prominent in cases of PD injection, or BS, or high-dose administration over 12 h, or bolus injection.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated pancreatitis: A 15-year review

The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We searched for and evaluated all articles describing the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, morbidity, mortality and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in adult patients using the PubMed database. Search terms included endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, ampulla of vater, endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilatation, cholangiography, adverse events, standards and utilization. We limited our review of articles to those published between January 1, 1994 and August 15, 2009 regarding human adults and written in the English language. Publications from the reference sections were reviewed and included if they were salient and fell into the time period of interest. Between the dates queried, seventeen large (> 500 patients) prospective and four large retrospective trials were conducted. PEP occurred in 1%-15% in the prospective trials and in 1%-4% in the retrospective trials. PEP was also reduced with pancreatic duct stent placement and outcomes were improved with endoscopic sphincterotomy compared to balloon sphincter dilation in the setting of choledocholithiasis. Approximately 34 pharmacologic agents have been evaluated for the prevention of PEP over the last fifteen years in 63 trials. Although 22 of 63 trials published during our period of review suggested a reduction in PEP, no pharmacologic therapy has been widely accepted in clinical use in decreasing the development of PEP. In conclusion, PEP is a well-recognized complication of ERCP. Medical treatment for prevention has been disappointing. Proper patient selection and pancreatic duct stenting have been shown to reduce the complication rate in randomized clinical trials.

Prophylactic use of ulinastatin against post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of ulinastatin in the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

METHODS: A method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ulinastatin in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). A total of four RCTs were included.

RESULTS: Two RCTs that focus on the comparison of ulinastatin and placebo for 446 patients undergoing ERCP and two RCTs that focus on the comparison of ulinastatin and gabexate for 207 patients were included. Analysis of these RCTs revealed the presence of statistical homogeneity among them. In ulinastatin versus placebo trials, the odds ratio associated with treatment with ulinastatin for PEP was 0.35 (95%CI: 0.14-0.88). In ulinastatin versus gabexate trials, the odds ratio associated with treatment with ulinastatin for PEP was 1.57 (95%CI: 0.39-6.24). A comparison of low-dose ulinastatin and gabexate was also performed, and the odds ratio associated with treatment with ulinastatin for PEP was 1.69 (95%CI: 0.39-7.32).

CONCLUSION: Current best evidence demonstrates that ulinastatin can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, and ulinastatin has very similar efficacy to gabexate in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Nafamostat for Prophylaxis against Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Compared with Gabexate

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.

Does glyceryl nitrate prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute pancreatitis is the most dreaded complication of ERCP. Two studies have shown a significant effect of glyceryl nitrate (GN) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We wanted to evaluate this promising effect in a larger study with a realistically precalculated incidence of PEP.

DESIGN/PATIENTS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study including patients from 14 European centers was performed. A total of 820 patients were entered; 806 were randomized.

INTERVENTION

The active drug was transdermal GN (Discotrine/Minitran, 3M Pharma) 15 mg/24 hours; placebo (PL) was an identical-looking patch applied before ERCP. A total of 401 patients received GN; 405 received PL.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients had PEP (5.8%), 18 (4.5%) in the GN group and 29 (7.1%) in the PL group. The relative risk reduction of PEP in the GN group of 36% (95% CI, 11%-65%) compared with the PL group was not statistically significant (P = .11). Thirteen had mild pancreatitis (4 in the GN group, 9 in the PL group), 26 had moderate pancreatitis (9 in the GN group, 17 in the PL group), and 8 had severe pancreatitis (5 in the GN group, 3 in the PL group). Headache (P < .001) and hypotension (P = .006) were more common in the GN group. Significant variables predictive of PEP were not having biliary stones extracted; hypotension after ERCP; morphine, propofol, glucagon, and general anesthesia during the procedure; or no sufentanil during the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The trial showed no statistically significant preventive effect of GN on PEP. Because of a considerable risk of a type II error, an effect of GN may have been overlooked. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00121901.).

Evaluation of recombinant platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase for reducing the incidence and severity of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most common major complication of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. Platelet-activating factor (PAF) has been implicated in the pathophysiologic events associated with acute pancreatitis. Animal and human studies suggested that recombinant PAF acetylhydrolase (rPAF-AH) might ameliorate the severity of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to determine whether prophylactic rPAF-AH administration reduces the frequency or severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

DESIGN

Randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received rPAF-AH at a dose of either 1 or 5 mg/kg or placebo. Patients were administered a single intravenous infusion over 10 minutes of study drug or placebo <1 hour before ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Standardized criteria were used to diagnose and grade the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Adverse events were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were enrolled. There were no statistically significant differences among the treatment groups with respect to patient demographics, ERCP indications, and patient and procedure risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis with the following exceptions: the rPAF-AH 5 mg/kg group had significantly fewer patients younger than 40 years old and scheduled to undergo a therapeutic ERCP involving the pancreatic sphincter or duct. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 17.5%, 15.9%, and 19.6% of patients receiving rPAF-AH (1 mg/kg), rPAF-AH (5 mg/kg), and placebo, respectively (P = .59 for rPAF-AH 1 mg/kg vs placebo and P = .337 for rPAF-AH 5 mg/kg vs placebo). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups with regard to the severity of pancreatitis, frequency of amylase/lipase elevation more than 3 times normal, or abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no apparent benefit of rPAF-AH treatment compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in subjects at increased risk.

Preventive effects of ulinastatin on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies have shown that ulinastatin may be effective at preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, routine administration of ulinastatin is unlikely to be cost-effective. So the aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose ulinastatin at preventing pancreatitis in patients at high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

A total of 227 patients (mean age, 63 years; 54% men) were randomized to receive placebo (n = 108) or active drug (n = 119) immediately after ERCP and received active drug (100,000 U of ulinastatin) or placebo. Occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 6.2%, and no significant differences were observed between placebo- and ulinastatin-treated patients in terms of the frequencies of pancreatitis (5.6% vs 6.7%), abdominal pain, or hyperamylasemia. Pancreatic duct acinarization, papillectomy of ampulla of Vater adenoma, difficult cannulation, and female sex were identified as risk factors for pancreatitis in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose prophylactic treatment with ulinastatin immediately after ERCP did not show a beneficial influence on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in high-risk patients.