A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrates to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

Current status and issues for prediction and prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis, which sometimes results in mortality, is a significant complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many studies have been conducted to predict and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), and meta-analyses have been reported that summarized these studies. However, many issues remain unresolved. Many risk factors for PEP have been reported, and it is rare for patients undergoing ERCP to have only one risk factor. The use of artificial intelligence may be important for analyzing complex and diverse risk factors. It is desirable to develop an alternative test for pancreatic enzymes that can predict the onset of PEP within 1 h after ERCP. The effectiveness of low-dose nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are controversial. Nitrate and tacrolimus are considered medications that have additional effects on NSAIDs and may be used for the prevention of PEP. Pancreatic stent placement with deliberate placement of the guidewire into the pancreatic duct may be more effective in preventing PEP. A comparison between transpancreatic sphincterotomy with deliberate guidewire placement into the pancreatic duct and needle-knife precut sphincterotomy is necessary. Early precutting is thought to be effective for the prevention of PEP, and the effectiveness of primary precut has been reported. However, the optimal timing of precut for the prevention of PEP has not been sufficiently discussed. Further research on prediction and prevention must be conducted to eliminate the mortality caused by PEP.

Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Up to 1 in 6 patients will experience an unplanned hospitalization after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), largely for the evaluation and management of adverse events. Therefore, a commitment to the prevention, early recognition, and effective rescue of complications related to ERCP is critical toward improving outcomes. ERCP is most often complicated by acute pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, or perforation, although myriad other adverse events may occur. The prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis has been the area of greatest interest and progress in the last decade, but the application of evidence-based prophylactic measures remains inconsistent. Innovations in stent, hemostasis, and perforation closure technology now allow effective and efficient endoscopic management of several important nonpancreatitis complications. Overall, our ability to prevent and treat ERCP-related adverse events has improved substantially, amplifying the importance of a high level of suspicion for and a thorough understanding of these events.

Updates in Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been shown to be a safe and effective approach in treating these diseases while carrying lower morbidity than traditional surgical treatments, ERCP has associated risks, with post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) being the most common serious adverse event and carries significant morbidity and health care cost. PEP results from multifactorial factors involving trauma to the pancreatic duct and papilla, leading to subsequent obstruction and impairment of pancreatic drainage. Important risk factors for PEP include history of prior PEP, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, difficult cannulation, pancreatic duct contrast injections, and pancreatic sphincterotomy.

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for the Prevention of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remains the most frequent and severe complication following ERCP, elevating both patient suffering and healthcare costs, and posing challenges to the advancement of ERCP techniques. Empirical evidence supports the prophylactic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the prevention of PEP, especially in high-risk populations, as endorsed by both the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, the prophylactic efficacy of NSAIDs in average-risk individuals, alongside the ideal drug selection, dosing, and timing of NSAID administration, remains to be elucidated. Furthermore, the synergistic preventive potential of NSAIDs when integrated with other interventions, such as hydration, pancreatic stenting, somatostatin administration, sublingual nitrate application, and epinephrine, warrants further clarification. In this paper, we conduct an exhaustive review of the prophylactic effect and clinical administration of NSAIDs for PEP. We comprehensively synthesize findings from clinical trials investigating NSAIDs, both in monotherapy and combination regimens, for PEP prevention. Additionally, we scrutinize the current landscape of NSAID usage in clinical practice and evaluate their cost-effectiveness. Future research should concentrate on refining NSAID prophylaxis strategies for PEP in patients at different risk levels, while also enhancing adherence to clinical guidelines and alleviating the issue of NSAID cost inflation.

CHOLECYSTECTOMY WITH INTRAOPERATIVE ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY: DOES THE ORDER MATTER?

BACKGROUND

The recommended treatment for cholecystocholedocholithiasis is cholecystectomy (CCT) associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). CCT with intraoperative ERCP is associated with higher success rates and lower hospital stays and hospital costs. However, some case series do not describe the exact methodology used: whether ERCP or CCT was performed first.

AIMS

Verify if there is a difference, in terms of outcomes and complications, when intraoperative ERCP is performed immediately before or after CCT.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study analyzing all patients who underwent CCT with intraoperative ERCP between January 2021 and June 2022, in a tertiary hospital in southern Brazil, for the treatment of cholecystocholedocholithiasis.

RESULTS

Out of 37 patients analyzed, 16 (43.2%) underwent ERCP first, immediately followed by CCT. The overall success rate for the cannulation of the bile duct was 91.9%, and bile duct clearance was achieved in 75.7% of cases. The post-ERCP pancreatitis rate was 10.8%. When comparing the "ERCP First" and "CCT First" groups, there was no difference in technical difficulty for performing CCT. The "CCT First" group had a higher rate of success in bile duct cannulation (p=0.020, p<0.05). Younger ages, presence of stones in the distal common bile duct and shorter duration of the procedure were factors statistically associated with the success of the bile duct clearance. Lymphopenia and cholecystitis as an initial presentation, in turn, were associated with failure to clear the bile duct.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in terms of complications and success in clearing the bile ducts among patients undergoing CCT and ERCP in the same surgical/anesthetic procedure, regardless of which procedure was performed first. Lymphopenia and cholecystitis have been associated with failure to clear the bile duct.

Nitroglycerin combined with NSAIDs for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with an incidence of approximately 9.7% according to some literature reviews. Recent clinical guidelines propose that glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) can reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, currently, no guidelines provide an exact opinion on GTN and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of prophylactic use of GTN, including GTN alone or GTN in combination with NSAIDs, on the prevention of PEP.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library. Search terms included "endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography" OR "ERCP," "OR 'PEP' OR 'post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis', pancreatitis," "GTN" OR "glyceryl trinitrate" OR "nitroglycerin," "NSAIDs" OR "Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs" and limited to RCT.

RESULTS

A total of 10 RCTs comprising 3240 patients undergoing ERCP were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the administration of GTN was associated with a significant reduction in the overall incidence of PEP. Moreover, PEP incidence was significantly lower in the GTN combined with the NSAIDs group than in the GTN alone group. GTN alone or GTN combined with NSAIDs may not reduce the severity of PEP (risk ratio = 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.99; P = .04). The difference in incidence between the 2 groups is 1.01% (6/594) in the GTN with NSAIDs group and 2.36% (14/592) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSION

GTN has a significant benefit in preventing postoperative ERCP pancreatitis (P < .001). And neither GTN nor GTN plus NSAIDs reduces the incidence of non-mild ERCP postoperative pancreatitis. These conclusions need to be confirmed by high-quality randomized controlled studies with multicenter, large samples, and long-term follow-up.

Effectiveness of the pharmacological therapy to prevent post ERCP acute pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of the different pharmacological agents in preventing post-ERCP acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We included clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. The event evaluated was acute pancreatitis. We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to nowadays. We reported the information in terms of relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval. We assessed the heterogeneity using the I2 test.

RESULTS

We included 84 studies for analysis (30,463 patients). The mean age was 59.3 years (SD ± 7.01). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I2 = 34.4%) with no inconsistencies (p = 0.2567). Post ERCP pancreatitis was less in prophylaxis with NSAIDs (RR 0.65 95% CI [0.52 to 0.80]), aggressive hydration with Lactate Ringer (RR 0.32 95% CI [0.12-0.86]), NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate (RR 0.28 95% CI [0.11-0.71]) and somatostatin and analogues (RR 0.54 [0.43 to 0.68]) compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs, the Combination of NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate, somatostatin and analogues, and aggressive hydration with lactate ringer are pharmacological strategies that can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis when compared to placebo. More clinical trials are required to determine the effectiveness of these drugs.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related complications: risk stratification, prevention, and management

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a crucial role in the management of pancreaticobiliary disorders. Although the ERCP technique has been refined over the past five decades, it remains one of the endoscopic procedures with the highest rate of complications. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications are broadly classified into patient-, procedure-, and operator-related risk factors. Although non-modifiable, patient-related risk factors allow for the closer monitoring and instatement of preventive measures. Post-ERCP pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. Risk reduction strategies include intravenous hydration, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and pancreatic stent placement in selected patients. Perforation is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and prompt recognition and treatment of ERCP-related perforations are key to ensuring good clinical outcomes. Endoscopy plays an expanding role in the treatment of perforations. Specific management strategies depend on the location of the perforation and the patient's clinical status. The risk of post-ERCP bleeding can be attenuated by preprocedural optimization and adoption of intra-procedural techniques. Endoscopic measures are the mainstay of management for post-ERCP bleeding. Escalation to angioembolization or surgery may be required for refractory bleeding. Post-ERCP cholangitis can be reduced with antibiotic prophylaxis in high risk patients. Bile culture-directed therapy plays an important role in antimicrobial treatment.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: current strategies and novel perspectives

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure that might lead to severe adverse events. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common post-procedural complication, which is related to significant mortality and increasing healthcare costs. Up to now, the prevalent approach to prevent PEP consisted of employing pharmacological and technical expedients that have been shown to improve post-ERCP outcomes, such as the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aggressive intravenous hydration, and the placement of a pancreatic stent. However, it has been reported that PEP originates from a more complex interaction of procedural and patient-related factors. Appropriate ERCP training has a pivotal role in PEP prevention strategy, and it is not a chance that a low PEP rate is universally considered one of the most relevant indicators of proficiency in ERCP. Scant data on the acquisition of skills during the ERCP training are currently available, although some efforts have been recently done to shorten the learning curve by way of simulation-based training and demonstrate competency by meeting technical requirements as well as adopting skill evaluation scales. Besides, the identification of adequate indications for ERCP and accurate pre-procedural risk stratification of patients might help to reduce PEP occurrence regardless of the endoscopist's technical abilities, and generally preserve safety in ERCP. This review aims at delineating current preventive strategies and highlighting novel perspectives for a safer ERCP focusing on the prevention of PEP.

An Insight on Pharmacological and Mechanical Preventive Measures of Post-ERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP)—A Review

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). With the progress of research in many drugs and technologies, promising efficacy has been achieved in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Recently, combined prevention has received more attention in order to further reduce the incidence of PEP. However, there is no review about the combined prevention of PEP. This review summarizes the medication and ERCP techniques that are used to prevent PEP and emphasizes that appropriate combination prevention approaches should be based on risk stratification.

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.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glyceryl trinitrate, or combinations for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common and severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent evidence suggests that combinations based on rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are more beneficial in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have also demonstrated the efficacy of glyceryl trinitrate (GTN). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

AIM

To compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

METHODS

A systematic search was done for full-text RCTs of PEP in PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for eligible RCTs. The major data were extracted by two independent reviewers. The frequentist model was used to conduct this network meta-analysis and obtain the pairwise OR and 95%CI. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/).

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible RCTs were selected, evaluating seven preventive strategies in 9416 patients. Rectal indomethacin 100 mg plus sublingual GTN (OR: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.09–0.50), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0.34, 0.18–0.65), sublingual GTN (0.34, 0.12–0.97), and rectal indomethacin 100 mg (0.49, 0.33–0.73) were all more efficacious than placebo in preventing PEP. The combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual GTN had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) probability of (92.2%) and was the best preventive strategy for moderate-to-severe PEP with a SUCRA probability of (89.2%).

CONCLUSION

Combination of rectal indomethacin 100 mg with sublingual GTN offered better prevention of PEP than when used alone and could alleviate the severity of PEP.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Prophylaxis in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and is responsible for substantial morbidity and health care expenditures of at least $200 million. Therapies for PEP prevention include pancreatic stent placement (PSP), rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, and aggressive lactated Ringer's hydration. Our objective was to determine which PEP prophylactic strategies are cost effective.

METHODS

We developed 2 separate decision trees to evaluate PEP prophylactic strategies. The first, in high-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, PSP, PSP with indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's, and no prophylaxis. The second, in average-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration, and no prophylaxis. We used incidence rates, transition probabilities, and costs from publications and public data sources. Outcome measures were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Compared with no prophylaxis, all strategies were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000 in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy in high-risk patients ($31,589/QALYs). In average-risk patients, indomethacin and sublingual nitrates were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000/QALYs compared with no prophylaxis. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy ($53,016/QALYs).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy for preventing PEP in both average-risk and high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. All strategies were cost effective when compared with no prophylaxis in high-risk patients, whereas all strategies except for aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's were cost effective in average-risk patients. Further studies are needed to improve the utilization of PEP prevention strategies.

Is the Combination of Rectal Diclofenac and Intravenous Ringer Lactate Superior to Individual Therapy for Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Open-Label, Single-Center Randomized Trial

METHODS

This was single-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients who were undergoing ERCP and who were at high risk for the development of PEP were selected for the study. Patients were randomized into 3 treatment groups: diclofenac suppository group, RL group, and a combination group.

RESULTS

Eight of 57 patients (14.03%) in the diclofenac group, 9 of 57 patients (15.78%) in the RL group, and 6 of 57 patients (10.52%) in the combination group developed PEP. The incidence of PEP between the three groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.70). Serum amylase level of >252 U/L had 91.3% sensitivity and 92.6% specificity for the diagnosis of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis is usually mild to moderate 95% times. Female sex, age younger than 50 years, a benign indication of ERCP, and low bilirubin levels have higher chances of PEP. A combination of rectal diclofenac and hydration with RL does not offer better protection for PEP, as compared with individual prophylaxis.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis with a combination of pharmacological agents based on rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rectally administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective but suboptimal in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or PEP. New trials with the combination of rectal NSAIDs and other pharmacological agents have been conducted. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the relative efficacy of combination regimens and identify an optimal regimen for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all the randomized controlled studies published until October 15, 2019, examining rectal NSAIDs and their combination with other pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. We conducted an NMA to combine the direct and indirect comparisons of rectal NSAIDs and their combination with other pharmacological agents.

RESULTS

The NMA included 24 studies evaluating 14 regimens in 11 321 patients. According to predictive interval plot and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, indomethacin + lactated Ringer's solution, followed by diclofenac + nitrate and indomethacin + normal saline, is the most efficacious combination of pharmacological agents for the overall prevention of PEP. Rectal indomethacin alone is the most efficacious agent for prevention of moderate to severe PEP, and rectal diclofenac is the most useful agent for prevention of PEP among the high-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin with intravenous hydration and rectal diclofenac with sublingual nitrate are the most efficacious combination regimens for the overall prevention of PEP.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: An Updated Review of Current Preventive Strategies

Pancreatitis is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with incidence rates as high as 16% in some centers. Recent studies have also shown an upward trend in hospitalization due to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related pancreatitis. Early interventions taken before, during, and after the procedure can significantly reduce the risk of pancreatitis and decrease morbidity and mortality of the patients. To select appropriate patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, in-depth knowledge of the patient-related and procedure-related risk factors is required. This updated clinical review outlines various pharmacological agents and surgical methods used for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Current evidence supports the use of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stent placement as an effective preventive strategy. Further research is needed to compare these preventive modalities to improve patient outcomes after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in Children

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

AIM

To assess the prevalence and factors associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a Chinese pediatric population.

METHODS

Sixty-six children who underwent ERCP between March 2018 and March 2019 at Shanghai Children's Medical Center were retrospectively recruited for the study. Clinical data, including demographics, indications, comorbidities, and procedural data, were reviewed to identify the prevalence and factors associated with PEP.

RESULTS

Ninety-two ERCPs were performed on 66 pediatric patients aged from 8 months to 14 years. The indications for ERCP were chronic pancreatitis (49, 53.2%), pancreaticobiliary maljunction (19, 20.7%), pancreas divisum (19, 20.7%), and pancreatic pseudocyst (5, 5.4%). All ERCPs were performed for therapeutic purposes. PEP was identified in 19 (20.7%) patients; there were ten mild cases, eight moderate cases, and one severe case. The univariate analysis revealed that a history of chronic pancreatitis was negatively associated with PEP (P = 0.033), and sphincterotomy was positively associated with PEP (P = 0.01). The multivariate analysis showed that sphincterotomy was a risk factor for PEP (P = 0.017, OR 4.17; 95% CI, 1.29, 13.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data revealed a high prevalence of PEP in a Chinese pediatric population. Chronic pancreatitis was a protective factor, and sphincterotomy was a risk factor for PEP development.

Naproxen, isosorbide dinitrate and co-administration cannot prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Randomized controlled trial

Backgrounds/Aims

Acute pancreatitis is the most widespread complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Here, we investigated the efficacy of rectal suppository naproxen, sublingual isosorbide dinitrate and their co-administration in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial carried out from June 2015 to February 2016 at the Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center in Rasht, Iran. A total of 585 patients were selected from candidates for diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP by using the simple sampling method. Patients divided into three groups. Group A received 500 mg naproxen, group B took 5 mg isosorbide dinitrate, and group C was co-administrated both agents before ERCP. The primary outcome measure was the development of pancreatitis onset of pain in the upper abdomen and increase of serum amylase activity more than 3 times over the upper normal limit (60-100 IU/L) within first the 24 h post-ERCP.

Results

Totally, 80 patients developed PEP included 29 (4.9%), 24 (4.1%), and 27 (4.6%) patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p=0.845). Longer ERCP time (p=0.041), using diazepam (p=0.033), a higher number of pancreatic ducts cannulation (p<0.001), pancreatic duct injection (p=0.013), and using pancreatic stent (p=0.004) were the predisposing factors for PEP.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that prophylactic naproxen suppository or isosorbide dinitrate sublingually or co-administration had no significant difference in the prevention and severity of PEP, however, enhancing the endoscopist’s skills can be effective. Departments and educational hospitals should develop their assessment and quality assurance measures for the training of fellows’ not only technical training but also an understanding of the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of the procedure.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis with rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Acute pancreatitis is the most common and feared adverse event associated with performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Unremitting effort has been made for over 40 years to minimize the frequency and severity of this complication. Recently, the use of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have opened a new era for its prevention. This review focuses on the role of NSAIDs in pancreatitis, the pharmacokinetics of these agents, and summarizes the results of clinical trials with rectal NSAIDs alone and combination regimens in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Primary Needle-Knife Fistulotomy Versus Conventional Cannulation Method in a High-Risk Cohort of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Successful biliary cannulation is a prerequisite and important component of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but conventional cannulation methods (CCMs) have a postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 14.1% in patients at high risk for PEP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF), compared with a CCM, when used for primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP.

METHODS

A total of 207 patients with one or more risk factors for PEP were prospectively enrolled. The patients were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups according to the primary biliary cannulation technique (NKF or CCM). We compared biliary cannulation success rates, cannulation and procedure times, and the incidence of adverse events, including PEP, between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean number of PEP risk factors was similar between the groups (NKF, 2.2 ± 1.0; CCM, 2.2 ± 0.9). PEP occurred in 8 patients in the CCM group and in no patients in the NKF group (9.2% vs 0%, P < 0.001). The rates of other adverse events did not differ between the groups. The biliary cannulation success rate was high in the NKF group, but relatively low in the CCM group, possibly because of the stringent failure criteria aimed at reducing PEP. However, the mean cannulation and total procedural times were longer in the NKF group than in the CCM group.

DISCUSSION

NKF is an effective and safe procedure to gain primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02916199.

Transpapillary Biliary Cannulation is Difficult in Cases with Large Oral Protrusion of the Duodenal Papilla

BACKGROUND

Biliary cannulation failure is a major problem during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. It remains unclear how duodenal papilla morphology affects biliary cannulation. Therefore, we proposed a new classification system for the duodenal papilla based on oral protrusion pattern (ratio of the length of the oral protrusion to the transverse diameter of the papilla) and papilla pattern.

AIMS

To retrospectively compare biliary cannulation results with regard to classification and operator experience.

METHODS

We analyzed 589 naïve major duodenal papillae. Our classification system comprised oral protrusion pattern, classified as small (Protrusion-S), regular (Protrusion-R), or large (Protrusion-L), and the papilla pattern, classified as annular (Papilla-A), unstructured (Papilla-U), longitudinal (Papilla-LO), isolated (Papilla-I), or gyrus (Papilla-G). Intra-evaluator concordance and the results of biliary cannulation were analyzed.

RESULTS

The following oral protrusion pattern classifications were observed: Protrusion-S, 11.7%; Protrusion-R, 77.9%; and Protrusion-L, 10.4%. The following papilla patterns were observed: Papilla-A, 67.1%; Papilla-U, 7.0%; Papilla-LO, 7.5%; Papilla-I, 1.2%; Papilla-G, 15.6%; and unclassified, 1.7%. Intra-evaluator concordance value (Fleiss kappa) was 0.788 for oral protrusion pattern and 0.750 for papilla pattern. A logistic regression analysis of cannulations performed by an experienced endoscopist identified Protrusion-L as a significant risk factor for difficult cannulation (odds ratio 2.956; 95% confidence interval 1.115-7.84; p = 0.029). Multivariate analysis confirmed Protrusion-L as an independent risk factor for difficult biliary cannulation (odds ratio 3.772; 95% confidence interval 1.359-10.464; p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

We propose a new general classification system for the duodenal papilla. Protrusion-L is a significant risk factor for difficult biliary duct cannulation.

Combination of Diclofenac and Sublingual Nitrates Is Superior to Diclofenac Alone in Preventing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a major adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreases the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Little is known about the combined effects of sublingual nitrate and NSAIDs. We performed a randomized trial to assess whether the combination of NSAIDs and sublingual nitrate is more effective than NSAIDs alone in preventing PEP.

METHODS

In a prospective superiority trial, eligible patients underwent ERCP at 12 endoscopic units in Japan, from March 2015 through May 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given diclofenac suppositories (50 mg) within 15 minutes after the endoscopic procedure alone (diclofenac-alone group, n = 442) or in combination with sublingual isosorbide dinitrate (5 mg) 5 minutes before the endoscopic procedure (combination group, n = 444). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of PEP.

RESULTS

PEP developed in 25 patients in the combination group (5.6%), and in 42 patients in the diclofenac-alone group (9.5%) (relative risk 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.95; P = .03). Moderate to severe pancreatitis developed in 4 patients (0.9%) in the combination group, and 10 patients (2.3%) in the diclofenac-alone group (relative risk 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.26; P = .12). There was no serious adverse event related to the additional administration of sublingual nitrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that prophylaxis with rectal diclofenac and sublingual nitrate significantly reduces the overall incidence of PEP compared with diclofenac suppository alone. ClinicalTrials.gov, no: UMIN 000016274.

Update on the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure to manage pancreaticobiliary disease. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP with a significant burden of morbidity and cost.

RECENT FINDINGS

Appropriate indication and counseling is mandatory especially for patients at increased risk for PEP such as those with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, pancreatic indications, and a prior history of PEP. Guidewire-facilitated deep cannulation is favored over contrast injection. High-quality trials support the use of rectal administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and pancreatic duct stent placement for high-risk patients. There is emerging evidence favoring the use of rectal NSAIDs and aggressive hydration in average-risk patients though further studies are required. There is also growing interest in the use of combination therapies as well such as pancreatic stents in combination with NSAIDs. The initial step towards PEP prevention involves careful patient selection and informed decision-making. Endoscopists should use several approaches to mitigate the risk of PEP, including guidewire-assisted cannulation, pancreatic stent placement, and rectal NSAIDs use for high-risk patients. The exact role of aggressive hydration and combination therapies needs to be further investigated.

Risk of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis After Double-Guidewire Biliary Cannulation in an Average-Risk Population

OBJECTIVES

Double-guidewire cannulation (DGC) for selective biliary access has been associated with increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in patients who have had pancreatic duct (PD) contrast injection. The objective of this study was to determine whether DGC increases PEP risk in standard risk individuals when controlling for procedural aspects such as PD contrast injection.

METHODS

Consecutive adults with native papillae who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography from 2009 to 2014 were retrospectively identified, and clinical data were collected.

RESULTS

There were 879 subjects who met inclusion criteria. Increased incidence of PEP was observed after DGC (18% with DGC vs 4% without DGC, P < 0.005). Additional factors associated with increased PEP risk included the following: PD contrast injection, PD wire cannulations, and biliary stent placement. The association between DGC and increased PEP risk remained significant in a multivariate model controlling for age, sex, PD contrast injection, biliary sphincterotomy, biliary stent placement, and rectal indomethacin administration (odds ratio = 2.87, 95% confidence interval = 1.23-6.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Double-guidewire cannulation is associated with increased risk of PEP when controlling for confounding variables. Prospective studies should be undertaken to assess whether prophylactic interventions reduce risk of PEP after DGC in an average-risk population.

Use of NSAIDs via the Rectal Route for the Prevention of Pancreatitis after ERCP in All-Risk Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We searched database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing periprocedural rectal administration of NSAIDs with placebo for the prevention of PEP. The rectal administration of NSAIDs significantly decreased the incidence of PEP in the whole patient population (odds ratio (OR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.64, P < 0.0001), high-risk patients (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19–0.58, P = 0.0001), and all-risk patients (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31–0.84, P = 0.008). The incidence of PEP was reduced by indomethacin (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.82, P = 0.004) and diclofenac (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15–0.46, P < 0.00001). The administration of NSAIDs before (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.73, P = 0.002) or after (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27–0.56, P < 0.00001) ERCP reduced PEP. The NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in mild PEP (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36–0.83, P = 0.004) and moderate-to-severe PEP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.79, P = 0.004). The rectal administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk and all-risk patients.

Epinephrine in the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Preliminary Study

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges between 15 and 20% among patients at high risk of developing PEP. The efficacy of indomethacin administration in the prevention of PEP is rather debatable. In the present randomized trial study, we evaluated whether or not the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine in comparison to the single administration of indomethacin differs in the pathogenesis and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

One hundred and ninety-two patients were randomized in a double-blinded manner into 3 groups: the epinephrine group (group A), the indomethacin group (group B), and the combined epinephrine and indomethacin group (group C). After the procedure, patients were evaluated for the PEP development.

RESULTS

During the procedure, 66 patients were randomized to the epinephrine group (group A), 68 cases to the indomethacin group (group B), and 58 individuals to the indomethacin-epinephrine group (group C). The mean age of patients in the epinephrine group was 59.59 ± 15.680 years, in the indomethacin group it was 58.06 ± 17.125 years, and in the combination group it was 59.62 ± 15.369 years. In the present study, we did not observe a significant difference between the 3 groups in sex, age, pre-ERCP amylase, lipase, and patient and procedure risk factors including pancreatic duct (PD) dilation (p = 0.404), PD cannulation (p = 0.329), and difficult cannulation (p = 0.076) among others. PEP developed in 7 of the 192 individuals (3.6%), 6 PEP cases occurred in the indomethacin group and 1 in the epinephrine group (p = 0.016). Univariate analysis of risk factors for PEP in patients with and without pancreatitis revealed no significant difference between the pancreatitis group and the non-pancreatitis group.

CONCLUSION

In comparison to the administration of indomethacin alone, a single application of epinephrine and the combination of epinephrine and indomethacin seem to be effective in reducing the cases of PEP. A further randomized clinical trial with a larger sample size is required to confirm the efficacy of our medication in the prevention of pancreatitis after ERCP.

Diclofenac Does Not Reduce the Risk of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in Low-Risk Units

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have an inhibitory role in pathogenesis of pancreatitis. Guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommend routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before or after ERCP for all patients without contraindications.

AIMS

Our aim was to evaluate the effect of diclofenac in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a high-volume, low-PEP-risk ERCP unit.

METHODS

The rate and severity of PEP were compared in groups of 1000 historical controls prior to the routine use of diclofenac and in 1000 patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac before ERCP.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 56 (2.8%) of the 2000 patients, and the rate of the pancreatitis was 2.8% in control group and 2.8% in diclofenac group (p = 1.000). The PEP rate among the native papilla patients was 3.9% in control group and 3.6% in diclofenac group (p = 0.803). In subgroup analysis of patients with a high risk of PEP, diclofenac neither prevented PEP nor made its course milder.

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected patient population in a center with a low incidence of PEP, diclofenac seems to have no beneficial effect.

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.

Diclofenac sodium versus ceftazidime for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to compare the efficacy of prophylactic, parenterally administered ceftazidime and rectally applied diclofenac sodium for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent ERCP. In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients received a suppository containing diclofenac sodium rectally (100 mg) and placebo intravenously (group A) or ceftazidime intravenously (1 g) and placebo rectally (group B) immediately before the procedure. The serum and urine amylase levels were recorded and the patients were clinically evaluated after ERCP.

RESULTS

Of the 272 patients enrolled (group A: 129; group B: 143), 32 developed pancreatitis (group A: 11 [8.5 %]; group B: 21 [14.7 %]; P = 0.17; relative risk = 1.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-3.43). The severity of the pancreatitis or complications did not significantly differ between the groups. A serum amylase level of ≥560 U/L and urine amylase level of ≥1150 U/L indicated a positive likelihood ratio for post-ERCP pancreatitis of ≥10. Moreover, the threshold visual analog scale score of ≤5 for abdominal pain after ERCP had excellent diagnostic potential for predicting the presence or absence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEP incidence did not differ between the ceftazidime and diclofenac sodium groups. In patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug contraindications, antibiotics can be considered a safe alternative to diclofenac sodium for PEP prevention. Moreover, the visual analog scale for abdominal pain has excellent diagnostic value for predicting PEP. CLINICAL TRIALS.

GOV NUMBER

NCT 01784445.

Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Advances in risk-stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and discusses timely research questions in this important area.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost.

RESULTS

After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Treating acute pancreatitis: what's new?

The medical treatment of acute pancreatitis continues to focus on supportive care, including fluid therapy, nutrition, and antibiotics, all of which will be critically reviewed. Pharmacologic agents that were previously studied were found to be ineffective likely due to a combination of their targets and flaws in trial design. Potential future pharmacologic agents, particularly those that target intracellular calcium signaling, as well as considerations for trial design will be discussed. As the incidence of acute pancreatitis continues to increase, greater efforts will be needed to prevent hospitalization, readmission and excessive imaging in order to reduce overall healthcare costs. Primary prevention continues to focus on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and secondary prevention on cholecystectomy for biliary pancreatitis as well as alcohol and smoking abstinence.

Preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: what can be done?

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis varies substantially and is reported around 1%-10%, although there are some reports with an incidence of around 30%. Usually, PEP is a mild or moderate pancreatitis, but in some instances it can be severe and fatal. Generally, it is defined as the onset of new pancreatic-type abdominal pain severe enough to require hospital admission or prolonged hospital stay with levels of serum amylase two to three times greater than normal, occurring 24 h after ERCP. Several methods have been adopted for preventing pancreatitis, such as pharmacological or endoscopic approaches. Regarding medical prevention, only non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, namely diclofenac sodium and indomethacin, are recommended, but there are some other drugs which have some potential benefits in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopic preventive measures include cannulation (wire guided) and pancreatic stenting, while the adoption of the early pre-cut technique is still arguable. This review will attempt to present and discuss different ways of preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events: post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and not uncommonly is the reason behind ERCP-related lawsuits. Patients at high risk for PEP include young women with abdominal pain, normal liver tests, and unremarkable imaging. Procedure-related factors include traumatic and persistent cannulation attempts, multiple injections of the pancreatic duct, pancreatic sphincterotomy, and, possibly, use of precut sphincterotomy. Aggressive hydration, use of rectal indomethacin, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting can diminish the risk (and likely severity) of PEP. Though hugely beneficial, these measures do not supersede careful patient selection and technique.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis remains the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is reported to occur in 2–10% of unselected patient samples and up to 40% of high-risk patients. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence behind the known risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as the technical and medical approaches developed to prevent it. There have been many advances in identifying the causes of this condition. Based on this knowledge, a variety of preventive strategies have been developed and studied. The approach to prevention begins with careful patient selection and performing ERCP for specific indications, while considering alternative diagnostic modalities when appropriate. Patients should also be classified by high-risk factors such as young age, female sex, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, a history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and normal serum bilirubin, all of which have been identified in numerous research studies. The pathways of injury that are believed to cause post-ERCP pancreatitis eventually lead to the common endpoint of inflammation, and these individual steps can be targeted for preventive therapies through procedural techniques and medical management. This includes the use of a guide wire for cannulation, minimizing the number of cannulation attempts, avoiding contrast injections or trauma to the pancreatic duct, and placement of a temporary pancreatic duct stent in high-risk patients. Administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) in high-risk patients is the proven pharmacological measure for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The evidence for or against numerous other attempted therapies is still unclear, and ongoing investigation is required.