Efficacy and safety of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Bodyweight-Adjusted Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs Dose in the Prevention of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce the incidence of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), their optimal dosage is unknown. Given possible interindividual variability in the pharmacodynamics of NSAIDs, we hypothesized that the dose required to achieve adequate PEP prophylaxis varies with body weight.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted an analysis using single-center, prospective, observational cohort study data. The primary outcome was PEP incidence by NSAID dosage per body weight (mg/kg). Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were classified into 3 groups.

RESULTS

We included 891 patients, with 400, 454, and 37 patients in the control group with no NSAID therapy, the NSAID <1.0 mg/kg group, and the NSAID ≥1.0 mg/kg group, respectively. In the adjusted cohort, the odds ratio of PEP was 0.18 (95% confidence interval: 0.041-0.79; P = 0.023) for NSAID ≥1.0 mg/kg and 1.3 (95% confidence interval: 0.76-2.3; P = 0.31) for NSAID <1.0 mg/kg compared to the control group without NSAID.

CONCLUSIONS

PEP was not prevented by NSAID dosages below 1.0 mg/kg body weight whereas a dosage above 1.0 mg/kg body weight had a significant prophylactic effect. An NSAID dosage adjusted to body weight may be necessary to achieve an adequate prophylactic effect against PEP.

[Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea]

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Society of Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five pre-procedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development. These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.

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.

Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography outcomes between cap-fitted forward and side viewing endoscopes in patients with Billroth II anastomosis

BACKGROUND

There have been no previous studies that directly compared outcomes between cap-fitted forward-viewing and side viewing endoscopes (SE). This study aimed to compare the technical success rate and occurrence of adverse events between the side viewing and cap-fitted forward-viewing endoscope (CE) groups among patients with Billroth II anatomy who underwent ERCP.

METHODS

The medical records of patients with a previous history of subtotal gastrectomy using Billroth II reconstruction who underwent ERCP at Yeungnam University Hospital between January 2004 and December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. The patients were divided into CE and SE group. Propensity score matching analysis was performed to minimize selection bias.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching resulted in 55 matched pairs for further analysis. Patients' characteristics were comparable in the matched cohorts. Final success rate of selective bile duct cannulation was not significantly different between the SE and CE groups (98.2% vs. 94.5%, p = 0.308). The complete CBD stone removal rate in CBD stone and successful biliary drainage rate in malignant biliary obstruction were not significantly different between the two groups. The rate of total ERCP-related adverse events was higher in the CE group than in the SE group, but the difference was not statistically significant (10.9% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.507). Among adverse events, the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis showed higher tendency in the CE group than in the SE group (10.9% vs. 5.5%, p = 0.297).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, CE seems to be equally effective as SE for ERCP in patients with Billroth II anatomy. However, attention should be paid to development of post ERCP complications, especially pancreatitis, when performed by CE.

The Incidence and Severity of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Standard Administration of NSAIDs: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and explore the discrepancies of PEP incidences among different subgroups.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported rectal administration of 100 mg or higher doses of diclofenac or indomethacin, with PEP as the primary outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The overall and severity of PEP were estimated. Subgroup analysis was performed based on geographic regions, risk level, study beginning time, type of NSAIDs, administration time, and sample size.

RESULTS

There were 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7954 patients in 31 NSAIDs arms. The pooled incidences were 7.2% for overall PEP (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.5%), 5.0% for mild PEP (95% CI, 4.0-6.0%), and 1.5% for moderate and severe PEP (0.8-2.3%). PEP rate were higher in patients receiving rectal indomethacin than that of patients receiving rectal diclofenac (7.8% (95% CI, 6.4-9.3%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 2.2-5.3%), p = 0.009). The PEP rates of high-risk patients and average-risk patients were 8.9% (95% CI, 5.6-12.2%) and 6.4% (95% CI, 5.1-7.6%), respectively (p = 0.160).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PEP was higher in patients receiving 100 mg rectal indomethacin than patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac. The effect of 100 mg diclofenac versus indomethacin on preventing PEP requires further study.

Comparison of Different Endoscopic Methods Used for Managing Choledocholithiasis in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Undergoing Hemodialysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), and endoscopic sphincterotomy plus balloon dilation (ESBD) are all techniques used to manage choledocholithiasis. We aim to analyze the efficacy and safety of these techniques for treating choledocholithiasis in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 80 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on HD who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis management between August 1st, 2012, and December 31st, 2020, at a medical center in southern Taiwan. These patients were divided into three groups: EST (n = 21), EPBD (n = 28), and ESBD (n = 31). Post-ERCP complications, including pancreatitis, bleeding, cholangitis, and perforation, were reviewed for analysis.

RESULTS

There were no significant among-group differences in the rate of complete stone clearance and hospitalization day after ERCP. Patients in the EST group had a higher post-ERCP complication rate than was the case in the other groups (p = 0.016). ESBD significantly reduced post-ERCP bleeding, compared with that occurring with EST (OR 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.72, p = 0.026). There were no significant among-group differences in the rates of pancreatitis and cholangitis. There were no ERCP-related perforations or deaths in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

EST, EPBD, and ESBD are efficient methods for treating choledocholithiasis in ESRD patients. ESBD was found to lead to a lower risk of bleeding than EST, and the rate of pancreatitis or cholangitis was comparable for EST and EPBD. Our results suggest that ESBD is the best choice of treatment of choledocholithiasis in patients with ESRD undergoing HD.

Effect of ice water injection toward the duodenal papilla for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis: study protocol for a multicenter, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (EUTOPIA study)

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure in the diagnosis and treatment of biliopancreatic diseases. The most common adverse event of ERCP is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which can sometimes be severe. Our previous study suggested that injecting ice water at the end of ERCP suppressed PEP, and we decided to investigate this effect in a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Methods

This study is being conducted at eight hospitals in Japan starting in April 2022. Patients undergoing ERCP will be randomized to ice water group and control group. In the ice water group, 250 ml of ice water is injected toward the papilla at the end of ERCP. The next morning, a physical examination and blood tests are performed to evaluate for the development of pancreatitis. The goal is to have 440 cases in each group.

Discussion

The main cause of PEP is thought to be papilla edema. Cooling the papilla, as everyone naturally does at the time of a burn, is expected to prevent its inflammation and edema. Various methods to suppress PEP have been reported, but so far none of them are reliable. The method we have devised is very simple, easy, and safe. We hope that our study will change the world's ERCP common practice.

Trial registration:UMIN000047528. Registered 20 April 2022, https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000053209

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Opioids vs Nonopioids in Acute Pancreatitis

Background and Aims

Although abdominal pain is one of the major criteria to diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP), there are no standardized guidelines to treat this troublesome symptom in the hospital setting. The aims of the study are to conduct a meta-analysis and to assess the efficacy of nonopioids vs opioids for pain management in AP.

Methods

We searched the medical literature through May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of opioids with nonopioids in AP pain management. Efficacy was reported as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of each comparison tested.

Results

We identified 7 eligible randomized controlled trials, containing 389 patients. No significant difference in terms of pain intensity at day 1 (OR 0.82, 95% CI -2.55 to 4.19) was found between opioids and nonopioids. Nonopioids have a significantly high risk of supplementary analgesic use compared with opioids (OR 3.87, 95% CI 1.25-12.04). However, this significance is not seen when comparing nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol with opioids (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.73-3.82) after excluding trials with procaine. Opioids did not show a significant increase in the complications of pancreatitis, nausea and vomiting, sedation, and deaths when compared with nonopioids.

Conclusion

We found nonopioids, especially nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol, can provide adequate pain relief in patients with AP with no change in supplementary analgesic use and adverse events when compared with opioids. Further research is needed to optimize the use of nonopioids along or in combination with opioids for better pain control in patients with AP.

Rectal Indomethacin Does Not Mitigate the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome in Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Experimental data suggest that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may prevent disease severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of rectal indomethacin vs placebo in reducing the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score in a high-risk AP population for clinical progression.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, quadruple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible criteria were subjects with AP and SIRS within 72 hours of presentation and those without organ failure. Subjects were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to indomethacin or placebo using simple randomization. Both interventions were administered rectally every 8 hours for 6 doses and compared using both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 42 subjects (mean age 52 years, 55% men) were randomized to indomethacin (n = 18) or placebo (n = 24). There was no significant difference between the indomethacin and placebo groups in the change of SIRS score, proportion of subjects with SIRS, and distribution of SIRS scores at 24, 48, and 72 hours from randomization. There were no significant differences in the change of C-reactive protein levels at 48 hours or clinical outcomes between both treatment groups. Indomethacin was as safe as placebo, with 2 adverse events occurring in the placebo and none in the indomethacin arm.

DISCUSSION

Rectal indomethacin can be safely administered over 48 hours; however, it is not superior to placebo in reducing the SIRS or clinical progression in a high-risk population with AP (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02692391).

Combined use of indomethacin and hydration is the best conservative approach for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a life-threatening complication. Given the lack of a causative treatment for pancreatitis, it is of vital importance to minimize this risk of PEP. Multi-target preventive therapy may be the best choice for PEP prevention as disease development is multifactorial.

AIM

We aimed to assess the efficacy of a combination of indomethacin and hydration - type and amount - for PEP prevention via a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Through a systematic search in three databases, we searched all randomized controlled trials involving hydration and indomethacin and ranked the PEP preventive efficacy with a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guideline. The RoB2 tool was used for risk of bias assessment, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for ranking and PROSPERO for the study protocol [reg. no. CRD42018112698]. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

RESULTS

The quantitative analysis included 7559 patients from 24 randomized controlled trials. Based on the SUCRA values, a combination of lactated Ringer's and indomethacin is more effective than single therapy with a 94% certainty. The percent relative risk ratios estimate preventive efficacy 70-99% higher for combinations than single therapies. Aggressive hydration with indomethacin (SUCRA 100%) is also significantly more effective than all other interventions (percent relative effect 94.3-98.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

A one-hit-on-each-target therapeutic approach is recommended in PEP prevention with an easily accessible combination of indomethacin and aggressive hydration for all average and high-risk patients without contraindication.

Combination prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients undergoing double-guidewire assisted biliary cannulation: A case-control study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are recommended for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). However, the effects of the combination of the two methods on preventing PEP are controversial. We hypothesized that some group of difficult patients might benefit from the combination of indomethacin plus PDS (IP) compared with indomethacin alone (IN).

METHODS

Patients with native papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in eight tertiary hospitals were screened. They were enrolled if the cannulation proved difficult and post-procedure indomethacin was administered. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between IP and IN groups. The primary outcome was PEP.

RESULTS

Among 4456 patients with available cannulation-related data, 1889 (42.4%) patients had difficult cannulation and received indomethacin. After PSM, both IP and IN groups included 332 patients. PEP was comparable between the two groups (12.7% vs 10.2%, P = 0.329). By subgroup analysis, the PEP rate was found to be lower in the IP group than in the IN group (7.3% vs 18.2%, P = 0.026) in patients undergoing double-guidewire technique (DGT). The results of an additional analysis using PSM in DGT patients were consistent with the subgroup analysis results (7.8% vs 19.4%, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that the combined prevention of PEP with indomethacin plus PDS was useful in PEP prevention in patients undergoing DGT. Other groups of patients with difficult cannulation may not benefit from the combination strategy.

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is of one the most common gastroenterology-related indications for hospital admissions worldwide. With the widespread reliance on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of pancreaticobiliary conditions, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has come to represent an important etiology of acute pancreatitis. Despite many studies aiming to better understand the pathogenesis and prevention of this iatrogenic disorder, findings have been heterogeneous, and considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Herein, we review the literature regarding PEP with the goal to raise awareness of this entity, discuss recent data, and present evidence-based best practices. We believe this manuscript will be useful for gastrointestinal endoscopists as well as other specialists involved in the management of patients with PEP.

Preventive and therapeutic significance of octreotide combined with lansoprazole on post-ERCP pancreatitis and its effect on serum amylase, inflammatory factors and immune function

The study aimed to investigate the preventive and therapeutic significance of octreotide combined with lansoprazole on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and its effects on serum amylase (AMS), inflammatory factors and immune function. A total of 132 patients who underwent ERCP in Shaoxing People's Hospital (Shaoxing, China) were enrolled in the study and allocated into two groups: The study group (octreotide plus lansoprazole, 68 cases) and the control group (octreotide alone, 64 cases). The incidence of PEP and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEH), the concentrations of serum AMS, interleukin-17 (IL-17) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), as well as the T-lymphocyte population in peripheral blood were detected. The AMS levels in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group at 6 and 24 h after treatment (P<0.001). The incidence of PEP and PEH, symptom disappearance time and hospital stay in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group after treatment (P<0.05). The levels of IL-17 and TNF-α in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group after treatment (all P<0.05). The percentage of CD3⁺, CD4⁺, CD8⁺ cells and the ratio of CD4⁺/CD8⁺ in the study group were significantly higher than those in the control group after treatment (all P<0.05). The results indicated that octreotide combined with lansoprazole reduces AMS levels and the incidence of PEP, alleviates inflammation and improves the immune function.

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.

Methods for prevention of acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with incidence rates ranging between 2% and 16%. In addition to being experienced in endoscopic procedures and having knowledge of the patient qualification criteria, physicians should also be aware of the patient and procedure-related risk factors responsible for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Intrarectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic duct stenting were demonstrated to be efficient in high-risk patients. This review provides a broader summary of pharmacological methods and techniques aimed at reducing the risk of PEP.

Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP procedure. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are reported to be one protective pharmacological agent with great efficacy regarding this complication. Recently, more trails have addressed this issue and some inconsistent results appeared. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different rectal NSAIDs schemes to prevent PEP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies published on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science before November 2018 were reviewed, and those which met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. The preventions were divided as placebo/no treatment, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, post-ERCP rectal indomethacin, pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin, indomethacin using during ERCP, and pre-ERCP rectal naproxen. The main outcomes included the incidence of PEP and its severity. Other complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of network meta-analysis illustrated that compared with the control, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, and indomethacin were significantly associated with lower incidences of PEP. Moreover, it is notable that pre-ERCP rectal NSAIDs might reduce the severity of pancreatitis. Also, rectal NSAIDs may lead to less occurrence of asymptomatic hyperamylasemia. On the basis of the clustered ranking, pre-ERCP diclofenac appeared to be the superior intervention for PEP with satisfying efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that pre-ERCP diclofenac is the optimal prevention method for PEP. However, more high quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials and observational studies are expected in the future.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for prophylaxis against endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) postoperative pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Selected RCTs were pooled under a fixed effects model to generate the relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving a total of 5031 patients (2555 in the intervention group and 2476 in the control group) were selected. Overall, NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, I² = 40.4%) and moderate to severe PEP (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67, I² = 0%) compared with the control group. Subgroup analyses were performed according to route of administration (rectal or other), type of NSAIDs (diclofenac, indomethacin, or other), timing of administration (pre-ERCP, post-ERCP, or other), and patient population (high risk or general). Subgroup analyses showed difference in clinical efficacy of NSAID prophylaxis regardless of route, timing, or specific type of NSAID.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP and moderate to severe PEP compared to the control group.

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.

What is impact of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Recently, although studies have investigated the role of NSAIDs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), selection of the ideal drug, the time and route of its administration for the appropriate population remain controversial.

Methods

A systematic search was done in sources including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from from August 1, 1990 to August 1, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing the prophylactic use of NSAIDs versus a placebo were included. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software to assess the outcomes.

Results

A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed that NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP (RR, 0.61, 95%CI,0.52–0.72; p < 0.00001). The analysis showed that indomethacin administration post-ERCP (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.70; p = 0.0002) appeared to be more effective in preventing PEP than indomethacin administration pre-ERCP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.79; P = 0.0003), but there was no significant difference between the high-risk and average-risk population(p = 0.13). In the diclofenac group, it was noted that administration of diclofenac pre-ERCP (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.63; p = 0.001) was more effective than that in post-ERCP (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.27–1.599; p = 0.35). The relative risk of PEP was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.27–1.50; p = 0.30) in high-risk patients and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.17–0.98; p = 0.02) in average-risk patients. With regard to the route of administration, PEP decreased significantly only in patients receiving the drug rectally (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44–0.63; p < 0.00001), but not for those who received intramuscularly (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47–1.17; p = 0.20), intravenously (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51–1.83; p = 0.93), and orally (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55–0.1.43; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

Rectal administration of NSAIDs (both indomethacin and diclofenac) was effective in preventing PEP in unselected patients. A single dose of indomethacin after ERCP might be effective in preventing PEP in both high-risk and average-risk patients. However, diclofenac administered rectally before ERCP might be protective against PEP in high-risk patients compared to a placebo. However, more high quality head-to-head RCTs are required.

Combination of diclofenac and aggressive hydration for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

AIM

To investigate whether aggressive hydration can increase the efficacy of prophylactic non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND

NSAIDs are recommended for the prevention of PEP; however, whether aggressive hydration can have additional benefits in this regard is not known.

METHODS

Patients candidate for ERCP received either pre-procedural rectal diclofenac (100 mg) alone (n = 112) or in combination with aggressive hydration by lactate ringer's (n = 107) as prophylactic method. PEP was defined based on increase in serum levels of pancreatic enzymes (from baseline to 24 hours following the procedure) accompanied with symptoms.

RESULTS

PEP was occurred in 3 patients in the diclofenac only group and in 1 patient in the diclofenac + hydration group with no significant difference (2.7% vs. 0.9%, P = 0.622). Serum amylase levels decreased over time in the diclofenac + hydration group but not in the diclofenac only group. Also, serum lipase levels decreased more rapidly over time in the diclofenac + hydration group compared to the diclofenac only group.

CONCLUSION

Combination prophylactic therapy with NSAIDs plus aggressive hydration does not seem to have additional clinically important benefits in preventing PEP. Studies with larger sample of patients are required in this regard.

Does rectal diclofenac reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis? A district general hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy in the literature recently regarding the efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of PEP in three distinct groups of patients at the Royal United Hospital, Bath: no use of rectal diclofenac, selective use and blanket use without contraindication.

METHOD

Readmission data, blood results, radiology reports and discharge summaries were used to identify patients with PEP from August 2010 to December 2015. The administration of rectal diclofenac postprocedure was recorded from the endoscopy reporting system.

RESULTS

1318 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) were performed by four endoscopists during the study period with 66 (5.0%) cases of pancreatitis. 445 ERCPs were performed prior to the introduction of NSAID use during which time, with an incidence of 35 (7.9%) episodes of PEP. During the selective period of NSAID use (high-risk patients) 539 ERCPs were performed and 72 (13.4%) patients received NSAIDs. 17 (3.2%) developed PEP. 334 ERCPs were performed when NSAIDs were given to all patients without contraindication. 289 (86.5%) of patients received rectal diclofenac and 13 (3.9%) developed pancreatitis. There is a statistically significant decrease in PEP comparing the groups of patients receiving NSAIDs selectively (p=0.0009) or routinely (p=0.0172) when compared with none. There is no difference between the selective and routine group (p=0.571).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the introduction of a selective or routine use of NSAIDs for PEP in a District General Hospital (DGH) significantly decreases the risk of pancreatitis (risk reduction 43.7%).