Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Development and external validation of a nomogram for prediction of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely performed for management of pancreatobiliary diseases; however, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains as an unsolved problem. Although various risk factors for PEP have been reported, the prediction of PEP remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a predictive model for PEP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP for biliary indications at two centers were retrospectively studied. Using data from a training cohort, we utilized a multivariable model to select five variables to construct a nomogram. The predictive model was internally and externally validated. Based on the nomogram, the patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Using the data of 2224 patients in the training cohort, five variables were selected to generate a nomogram: 1) sex, 2) indication for ERCP, 3) difficult cannulation, 4) guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, and 5) endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The most significant risk factor was endoscopic papillary balloon dilation such as endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The bias-corrected concordance index was 0.72 in the training cohort and 0.72 in the validation cohort. Calibration curves for both cohorts demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and observed frequencies of the actual outcome. In the validation cohort, PEP developed in 5.0% and 14% of patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed a good predictive model for PEP. The prevention of PEP in high risk patients should be investigated further.

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.

Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Pathophysiology and Prevention

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreato-biliary disorders. Pancreatitis remains the most frequent complication of the ERCP procedure, and it is, therefore, necessary to recognize the pathophysiology and risk factors contributing to the development of pancreatitis and understand the methods to prevent this complication.

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP.

Results

We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score.

Conclusions

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

Utilization pattern of prophylactic measures for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a National Survey Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event of ERCP. Various prophylactic measures are endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to both lower the incidence of PEP and to decrease its severity. The extent to which these interventions are practiced throughout the United States is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the utilization pattern of various PEP measures and determine factors that affect utilization of these measures.

METHODS

A 27-question electronic survey was distributed using a cloud-based program (Qualtrics). The questions assessed ERCP training, practice setting, experience, practice patterns, and perceptions for PEP prophylaxis interventions. Endoscopists with practices based in the United States listed in the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy member directory received a survey invitation via e-mail. The invitation outlined the study and contained a link with instructions to complete the voluntary survey if they had an active ERCP practice. Data were de-identified for the purposes of analysis.

RESULTS

Of survey respondents (N = 319), 46% reported therapeutic endoscopy fellowship training and 37% practiced in teaching programs. Annualized ERCP volume of >100 cases per year were reported by 47%, with pancreatic ERCP comprising ≤5% of procedure volume reported by the majority of respondents (61%). The majority of respondents used prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS), and 54% reported frequent use during high-risk ERCP. The most common indications for PPS were difficult cannulation, to assist biliary access, and multiple pancreatic duct injections. Most respondents reported frequent use of indomethacin (89%). Of physicians who did not use PPS, use of indomethacin was the most common reason (80%). Variables associated with frequent use of PPS were ERCP fellowship training (P ≤ .001), practice at a teaching program (P ≤ .001), <10 years in practice (P = .005), higher procedure volume (P ≤ .001), and higher proportion of pancreatic cases (P ≤ .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians with higher annual ERCP volume, who teach at hospital-based ERCP practices, and who regularly perform pancreatic ERCP are more likely to use PPS. Therapeutic ERCP fellowship training and recent entry into practice were also associated with PPS utilization. Indomethacin use seems to be more frequent than PPS. Our findings suggest that indomethacin is supplanting PPS as the preferred method of PEP prophylaxis.

Universal prophylactic rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with a policy of selective pancreatic duct stenting significantly reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective for the prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, the benefit in average-risk patients is unclear. We aimed at assessing the benefit of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs in unselected consecutive patients to prevent PEP.

METHODS

All patients undergoing index ERCP procedures from January 2018 until March 2020 were included. All patients received prophylactic rectal diclofenac. A prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent was placed if there was repeated PD cannulation, at the discretion of the endoscopist. The frequency of PEP was compared with historical controls.

RESULTS

Of 769 patients who underwent ERCP, 34 (4.4%) developed PEP (mild in 29 [85.3%], moderate in four [11.8%] and severe in one [2.9%]). Female gender, precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent PD cannulation and procedural time of > 30 minutes predicted PEP in univariate analysis. Inadvertent PD cannulation (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8-11.7; p < 0.001) and procedural time of > 30 minutes (OR 8.5, 95% CI: 3.7-10.1; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. When compared with historical controls, the odds of PEP with prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs and selective PD stenting was 0.54 (CI: 0.31-0.93, p = 0.027). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 22 to prevent one PEP with prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs effectively prevents the occurrence of PEP in unselected consecutive patients in a real-world scenario.

The safety and efficacy of Ringer's solution loading with rectal diclofenac for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The RESOLUTION-PEP study

Objectives

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of aggressive hydration with rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

Methods

This prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial was conducted at 12 institutions between October 2020 and August 2021. We enrolled 231 patients who had intact papillae and were scheduled to undergo ERCP. All patients were administered rectal diclofenac before ERCP. They received aggressive hydration with intravenous lactated Ringer's solution in an initial bolus of 5 ml/kg at the start of ERCP, followed by 3 ml/kg/h for 8 h after the procedure. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PEP. Secondary outcomes included PEP severity, hyperamylasemia, and adverse events.

Results

The mean age of the patients was 68.8 ± 13.7 years, and 81 patients (35.1%) were 75 years or older. Thirteen patients developed PEP (5.6%, 95% confidence interval 3.0%-9.4%). There were 11 cases (4.8%) of mild pancreatitis and two cases (0.9%) of severe pancreatitis. Forty-five patients (19.5%) developed hyperamylasemia and one patient developed non-severe peripheral edema.

Conclusions

Aggressive hydration combined with rectal diclofenac may be a promising strategy for the prevention of PEP. Furthermore, it is safe even for older individuals.

Update on the management of acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides insight into the recent advancements in the management of acute pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Moderate fluid resuscitation and Ringer's lactate has advantages above aggressive fluid resuscitation and normal saline, respectively. A normal "on-demand" diet has a positive effect on recovery from acute pancreatitis and length of hospital stay. A multimodal pain management approach including epidural analgesia might reduce unwarranted effects of opiate use. A more targeted use of antibiotics is starting to emerge. Markers such as procalcitonin may be used to limit unwarranted antibiotic use. Conversely, many patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated with only antibiotics, although the optimal choice and duration is unclear. Delay of drainage as much as is possible is advised since it is associated with less procedures. If drainage is required, clinicians have an expanding arsenal of interventional options to their disposal such as the lumen-apposing metal stent for transgastric drainage and (repeated) necrosectomy. Immunomodulation using removal of systemic cytokines or anti-inflammatory drugs is an attractive idea, but up to now the results of clinical trials are disappointing. No additional preventive measures beside non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can be recommended for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

SUMMARY

More treatment modalities that are less invasive became available and a trend towards less aggressive treatments (fluids, starvation, interventions, opiates) of acute pancreatitis is again emerging. Despite recent advancements, the pathophysiology of specific subgroup phenotypes is still poorly understood which reflects the disappointing results of pharmacological and immunomodulatory trials.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Aggressive hydration for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated that aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's (LR) solution reduces the frequency and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In this trial sequential analysis (TSA), we aimed to evaluate the prophylactic effect of aggressive hydration on PEP in specific patient subgroups and to determine the need for additional RCTs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic and comprehensive search to identify all randomized controlled studies published through August 2021 that examined the effectiveness of aggressive hydration for preventing PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. We also performed TSA to calculate the required information size and assess whether our results were conclusive.

RESULTS

The analysis included 12 studies involving 2,501 patients. According to the TSA, the overall frequency of PEP was significantly lower in the aggressive hydration group (5.6%; 74 of 1,327 patients) than in the control group (13.1%; 154 of 1,174 patients) (risk ratio [RR]: 0.458; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.350-0.599). In the subgroup analysis of patients with average risk, the cumulative Z curve crossed both the conventional test boundary and the trial sequential monitoring boundary. However, in the high-risk group and in patients with moderate-to-severe PEP, the Z curve did not cross the trial sequential monitoring boundary.

CONCLUSIONS

This TSA indicates that aggressive hydration is effective in the overall prevention of PEP. However, additional RCTs are required to examine the prophylactic effect of aggressive hydration with LR on PEP in high-risk populations.

Suspected common bile duct stones: reduction of unnecessary ERCP by pre-procedural imaging and timing of ERCP

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome.

METHODS

We established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP.

RESULTS

We established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25-4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP.

Current approaches and questions yet to be resolved for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Prophylaxis is important for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), which is the most common and serious complication of ERCP. Although the current guidelines include independent patient- and procedure-related risk factors for PEP and available PEP prophylactic measures, the synergistic effect of these risk factors on PEP should also be considered, given that patients often harbor multiple risk factors. Furthermore, a combination of prophylactic measures is often selected in clinical practice. However, established methods estimating the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP incidence are lacking, and evidence on the impact of combining prophylactic measures on PEP should be discussed. Selection of appropriate candidate patients for ERCP is also important to reduce the incidence of PEP associated with unnecessary ERCP. ERCP indications in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones (CBDSs) and in those with suspected CBDSs with no imaging-based evidence of stones are controversial. Further studies are warranted to predict the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP, determine the best prophylactic PEP measures, and identify appropriate candidates for ERCP in patients with asymptomatic CBDSs and those with suspected CBDSs.

Efficacy of Combined Management with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone or in combination with other agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopanography.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search of random controlled trials (RCTs) on preventing post-operative pancreatitis by administration of the anti-inflammatory drugs, indomethacin and diclofenac, following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The databases searched for relevant publications up to July 7, 2021, included PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. We screened the literature according to inclusion criteria and analyzed the extracted data. The overall population and high-risk patient groups were analyzed, with the main outcome being the incidence of PEP.

RESULTS

The search identified 32 RCTs that included 15019 patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis and 9 different interventions. The results of the overall population network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. However, compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference between the two interventions (NSAIDs + standard hydration and high-dose NSAIDs). In addition, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates were associated with a lower incidence of PEP compared to that observed with NSAIDs alone. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + sublingual nitrate had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + standard hydration, NSAIDs + melatonin, NSAIDs + aggressive hydration, NSAIDs + somatostatin, NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs + epinephrine, high-dose NSAIDs, and placebo. In the high-risk subgroup, the results of the network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs showed no statistically significant difference in their ability to reduce the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + hydration had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + sublingual nitroglycerin and NSAIDs + aggressive hydration.

CONCLUSION

Of the nine interventions, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates had considerably better efficacy than the other drugs for reducing the incidence of PEP in the overall population. In high-risk patients, NSAIDs + standard hydration may be the best preventive treatment; however, more randomized, controlled trials are needed to validate our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews. Unique identifying number or registration ID: CRD42021282205.

Efficacy of aggressive hydration with normal saline versus lactated Ringer's solution for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a common adverse event in high-risk patients. Current intervention known to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP include pancreatic duct stent placement, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs per rectum, and intravenous (IV) fluids. We compared aggressive normal saline (NS) vs aggressive lactated Ringer's (LR) infusion for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Patients and methods  Patients were randomized to receive either an aggressive infusion of NS or LR. The infusion was started at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr and continued throughout the ERCP procedure. A 20 mL/kg bolus was given at the end of the procedure, then continued at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr. Results  A total of 136 patients were included in our analysis. The incidence of PEP was 4 % (3/72 patients) in the LR group versus 11 % (7/64 patients) in the NS group resulting in a relative risk (RR) of 0.38 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 1.42; P  = 0.19). The relative risk reduction (RRR) was 0.62 (95 % CI -0.41 to 0.90) along with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.07 (95 % CI -0.025 to 0.17) and an number needed to treat of 15 (95 % CI -41 to 6). Conclusions  To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing aggressive IV NS to aggressive IV LR in high-risk patients. The incidence of PEP was lower in the group receiving an aggressive LR infusion (4 %) compared to NS infusion (11 %). However, the difference was not statistically significant likely due to poor accrual thereby impacting the power of the study.

NSAIDs are not enough - a double blinded randomized controlled trial on the impact of intensive hydration for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In patients receiving NSAID prophylaxis, we aimed to assess whether periprocedural intensive hydration (IH) resulted in a lower incidence of PEP when compared to standard hydration (SH).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective, single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, with inclusion of consecutive patients submitted to inaugural ERCP between January 2015 and December 2018. Patients were randomized on admission, in a 1:1 ratio, to either SH-Ringer's Lactate (RL) at a rate of 1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 h following the procedure, or IH-RL at a rate of 3 mL/kg/h during and for 8 h following the procedure, with an additional bolus of 20 mL/kg at the end of the procedure. PEP incidence and severity were assessed according to the Atlanta Guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were randomized (83 to IH, 72 to SH). PEP was observed in 8,4% (n = 13) of the patients, and was significantly less frequent in IH patients when compared to SH (3,6% vs 13,9%, P = 0,021; relative risk 0.233 [95% IC, 0.061-0.881]); five patients in the SH group developed moderate to severe PEP, in contrast to 0 patients in the IH group (6.9% vs 0.0%, P = 0,020).

CONCLUSIONS

Intensive hydration significantly decreased the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis by four-fold. Moreover, no cases of moderate or severe pancreatitis were observed in patients submitted to this intervention. Associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intensive hydration could constitute a new standard of care for patients undergoing ERCP.

Prevention and Management of Complications of Biliary Endoscopy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreaticobiliary disorders. ERCP is, however, associated with the risk of complications including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, infection, and instrument failure, which can often be fatal. It is, therefore, necessary to recognize the risk of ERCP-associated complications and understand the methods to prevent and treat such complications.

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.

Optimal timing of rectal diclofenac in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients and methods  We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance. Results  We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P  = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P  = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P  = 0.002). Conclusions  Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use.

Application of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the most important methods for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of biliary and pancreatic diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used in clinical prevention of PEP, but the application standards are not unified. This article reviews the progress in the research of the preventive effect of different types of NSAIDs on PEP, their administration routes, timing, and dosage, and combination with other drugs, as well as the preventive effect of NSAIDs in different risk stratification populations, and points out that indomethacin and diclofenac are the most commonly used types of NSAIDs, which should be given at 100 mg via rectal administration before ERCP in all non-selected patients with no contraindications.

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.