Rectal Indomethacin Reduces Pancreatitis in High- and Low-Risk Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

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.

Why is the rectal route for NSAIDS favorable for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis?

OBJECTIVE

Acute pancreatitis is a frequent, burdensome adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP). Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have reduced post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk by about 50 % and show greater efficacy over parenteral or oral administration, although the mechanism for its superiority remains unclear. To probe this question, we investigated in a preclinical model, the pharmacokinetics in the blood, pancreas and other tissues of the NSAID diclofenac given via the rectal, intravenous, or intragastric routes.

METHODS

The data on diclofenac was extracted from a larger study that examined a combination of diclofenac and tacrolimus. 20.8 mg diclofenac/kg body weight, which is the mouse equivalent dosing used in clinical practice for PEP prophylaxis, was administered to C57BL/6J mice via the rectal, intravenous and intragastric (oral) routes. Cross-collection of blood and tissues was done at various timepoints after administration for the evaluation of drug levels and pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

Rectal diclofenac demonstrated favorable blood pharmacokinetics and systemic bioavailability as well as sustained pancreas penetration. The total pancreas exposure to diclofenac over 24 h following rectal dosing was not significantly different as compared to intravenous and oral dosing.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the efficacy of rectal diclofenac in PEP prevention relates more to its higher and consistent systemic exposure than its absolute pancreas levels. The implications are that the rectal route provides both systemic and pancreas exposure for the full duration of PEP vulnerability.

Post Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Novel Mechanisms and Prevention by Drugs

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is becoming more common than first-line therapy for pancreaticobiliary duct disorders. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCPs, and affects about 10% of cases. In this review, we provide an overview of the mechanisms purported to cause post-ERCP pancreatitis as well as associated risk factors. We discuss measures that are in practice for post-ERCP pancreatitis pharmaco-prophylaxis, along with advances in the pipeline. We emphasize that there is still a pressing need to narrow the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and that a mechanistic approach may reveal the greatest benefit from utilizing a combination of targets.

Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Rectal Indomethacin vs. Compounded Rectal Diclofenac Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a 3-15% risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of PEP, but its cost has increased more than 20-fold over the past decade. Rectal diclofenac is also used to prevent PEP but is not commercially available in the United States. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PEP after administration of commercially available rectal indomethacin versus compounded rectal diclofenac and assess financial implications.

METHODS

ERCP cases at our institution with administration of 100 mg rectal indomethacin or 100 mg compounded rectal diclofenac between May 2018 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and severity of PEP was compared between the indomethacin (n = 728) and diclofenac (n = 304) groups. Risk factors (young age, female sex, history of pancreatitis or PEP, sphincterotomy during procedure, pancreatic indication, trainee involvement) and protective factors (prior sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct stenting) for PEP were compared between groups.

RESULTS

60 patients (8.2%) in the rectal indomethacin group and 25 patients (8.2%) in the compounded rectal diclofenac group developed PEP, resulting in moderate or severe PEP in 9 (15.0%) and 2 (8.0%) patients, respectively. The compounded rectal diclofenac group had more trainee involvement (46.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.0001) and more prior sphincterotomy cases (15.8% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0193) compared to the rectal indomethacin group; no statistically significant differences were observed in all other risk and protective factors. Following switch to compounded rectal diclofenac, institutional annual cost savings amounted to $441,460.62 and patient charge decreased 45-fold.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective single-center real-world analysis showed similar efficacy of rectal indomethacin and compounded rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP but demonstrates substantial cost savings after switching to compounded rectal diclofenac.

Real-world evidence comparing early and late pancreatic stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

Background and study aims Pancreatic stenting effectively lowers the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and reduces its severity. However, limited research has been conducted to determine the optimal timing for pancreatic stent placement. Our objective was to evaluate whether early pancreatic stent placement (EPSP) is more effective than late pancreatic stent placement (LPSP) in preventing PEP among patients with naive papilla. Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study that analyzed 590 patients with difficult biliary cannulation using the pancreatic guidewire technique, who were divided into EPSP and LPSP groups. In the EPSP group, a pancreatic stent was placed immediately before/after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) or endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). Conversely, in the LPSP group, a pancreatic stent was placed after partial/all completion of major endoscopic procedures. Results From November 2017 to May 2023, 385 patients were in the EPSP group and 205 in the LPSP group. EPSP was associated with a decreased PEP occurrence compared with LPSP (2.9% vs. 7.3%; P = 0.012). Similarly, hyperamylasemia was lower in the EPSP group (19.7% vs. 27.8%; P = 0.026). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis and propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis also validated these findings. Conclusions Early pancreatic stent placement reduced the incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia compared with late pancreatic stent placement. Our findings favor pancreatic stenting immediately before/after ERC or EST.

Multistep validation of a post-ERCP pancreatitis prediction system integrating multimodal data: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The impact of various categories of information on the prediction of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains uncertain. We comprehensively investigated the risk factors associated with PEP by constructing and validating a model incorporating multimodal data through multiple steps.

METHODS

Cases (n = 1916) of ERCP were retrospectively collected from multiple centers for model construction. Through literature research, 49 electronic health record (EHR) features and 1 image feature related to PEP were identified. The EHR features were categorized into baseline, diagnosis, technique, and prevention strategies, covering pre-ERCP, intra-ERCP, and peri-ERCP phases. We first incrementally constructed models 1 to 4 incorporating these 4 feature categories and then added the image feature into models 1 to 4 and developed models 5 to 8. All models underwent testing and comparison using both internal and external test sets. Once the optimal model was selected, we conducted comparisons among multiple machine learning algorithms.

RESULTS

Compared with model 2 that incorporated baseline and diagnosis features, adding technique and prevention strategies (model 4) greatly improved the sensitivity (63.89% vs 83.33%, P < .05) and specificity (75.00% vs 85.92%, P < .001). A similar tendency was observed in the internal and external tests. In model 4, the top 3 features ranked by weight were previous pancreatitis, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, and difficult cannulation. The image-based feature has the highest weight in models 5 to 8. Finally, model 8 used a random forest algorithm and showed the best performance.

CONCLUSIONS

We first developed a multimodal prediction model for identifying PEP with a clinical-acceptable performance. The image and technique features are crucial for PEP prediction.

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.

Indomethacin Does Not Reduce Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Pancreatic Stenting

BACKGROUND

Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its added benefits in patients already receiving prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of indomethacin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatic stenting.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent the rescue cannulation technique for challenging bile duct cannulation (selected high-risk patients). Patients were split into two groups based on the prophylaxis method for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP): one receiving a combination of indomethacin and pancreatic stenting, while the other received pancreatic stenting alone. Comparative analyses were carried out on PEP, hyperamylasemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 607 patients with native papillae were enrolled, with 140 grouped into the indomethacin plus stent group and 467 into the stent alone group. The overall PEP rate was 4.4% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.407), mild PEP (P = 0.340), moderate to severe PEP (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia (P = 0.543), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.392), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.521). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis also validated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in high-risk patients who routinely received prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Therefore, the additional administration of rectal indomethacin to further mitigate PEP appears to be not necessary.

Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy After Double Guidewire Technique Was Noninferior to Primary Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation

BACKGROUND

When unintentional pancreatic duct access occurs during difficult biliary cannulation, the double guidewire (DGW) or transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) may be utilized. DGW can be easily switched to TPS due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. However, the efficacy of TPS after DGW, named sequential DGW-TPS technique, versus primary TPS has not been assessed.

AIMS

Our aim was to compare the benefits and adverse events of sequential DGW-TPS technique and primary TPS.

METHODS

We performed a comparative retrospective cohort study that enrolled a total of 117 patients with native papillae. The patients were divided into one of 2 groups according to the primary bile duct access technique (sequential DGW-TPS or primary TPS), both with pancreatic stenting.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 84 patients were grouped into sequential DGW-TPS and 33 into primary TPS. The overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 4.3% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences were observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.927), PEP severity (P = 1.000), first biliary cannulation success (P = 0.621), overall cannulation success (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia incidence (P = 0.241), elevated amylase levels (P = 0.881), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.185). Furthermore, these results remained consistent in multivariable regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The sequential DGW-TPS technique showed a comparable safety and biliary cannulation success rate to primary TPS in difficult biliary cannulation. Given the potential long-term complications associated with TPS, DGW should be first if inadvertent pancreatic access occurs, with TPS serving as second only if DGW fails.

Rectal administration of low-dose diclofenac does not reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a popular technique; however, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major adverse event. The administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is reportedly effective in preventing PEP. However, the recommended dose varies and the efficacy of low-dose rectal NSAIDs remains unclear. Therefore, we decided to investigate the effectiveness of low-dose rectal diclofenac on PEP prevention, using propensity score matching.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 401 patients who underwent ERCP between July 2015 and March 2020. After December 2016, we administered rectal diclofenac within 30 min before the ERCP procedure as widely as possible. Patients were divided into those who did (diclofenac group) and did not (control group) receive rectal diclofenac. Patients weighing ≥ 50 kg were administered a 50 mg dose, while those weighing < 50 kg were administered a 25 mg dose. The incidence and severity of PEP in the two groups were assessed by propensity score matching analysis.

RESULTS

Among 401 patients undergoing ERCP, 367 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, 187 patients received rectal diclofenac (diclofenac group) and 180 did not (control group). After propensity score matching, 105 pairs were selected for evaluation. Overall, seven (6.7%) patients in the diclofenac group and 10 (9.5%) in the control group developed PEP (P = 0.45). Moderate or severe PEP occurred in four (3.8%) patients in the diclofenac group and six (5.7%) in the control group (P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of low-dose rectal diclofenac could not reduce the incidence and severity of PEP.

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.

LENS EQUIVALENT DOSE OF STAFF DURING ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY: DOSE COMPARISON USING TWO TYPES OF DOSEMETERS

This study aimed to compare the lens equivalent dose (LED) measured during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using DOSIRIS™ as a dedicated dosemeter to that measured using glass badges to determine if glass badges can be alternative tools for LED measurement. LEDs for physicians during ERCP were measured using the DOSIRIS™ [3-mm dose equivalent] worn on the outer edge of the eyes and personal dosemeters (glass badges) [0.07-mm dose equivalent] worn on the right and left sides of the neck. The cumulated doses over 6 months for the left eye using DOSIRIS™ were 9.5 and 11.8 mSv for physicians A and B, whereas doses measured using glass badges were 7.5 and 11.6 mSv, respectively. The LEDs of the physicians at the left eye and left neck side showed almost similar values and were significantly correlated (r = 0.95; p < 0.01). For an accurate LED measurement during ERCP, using a dosemeter such as DOSIRIS™ is recommended, although similar LED estimation values were reported using glass badges on the left neck side.

A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating PAN-PROMISE, a Patient-reported Outcome Measure to Detect Post-ERCP Morbidity

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Cotton Consensus (CC) criteria for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) may not capture post-ERCP morbidity. PAN-PROMISE, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), was developed to quantify acute pancreatitis-related morbidity. This study aims to determine the value of PAN-PROMISE in independently defining ERCP-related morbidity.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP at 2 academic centers from September 2021 to August 2022. We administered PAN-PROMISE and assessed quality of life and work productivity at baseline, 48 to 72 hours, 7 days, and 30 days following ERCP. PEP was defined by a 3-physician committee using the CC criteria. We defined high morbidity following ERCP (elevated PROM) by an increase of PAN-PROMISE score of >7 at 7 days post-procedure. The McNemar test assessed discordance between PEP and elevated-PROM.

RESULTS

A total of 679 patients were enrolled. Choledocholithiasis (30%) and malignant biliary obstruction (29%) were the main indications for ERCP. Thirty-two patients (4.7%) developed PEP. One hundred forty-seven patients (21.6%) had an elevated PROM, whereas only 20 of them (13.4%) had PEP by the CC criteria (P < .001 for discordance). An elevated PROM strongly correlated with lower physical quality of life and increased direct and indirect health care costs ($80 and $25 per point increase in PAN-PROMISE, respectively). Patients with pancreatic cancer (odds ratio, 4.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-10.74) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.45) had the highest odds of elevated PROM.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients experience significant morbidity after ERCP despite not developing PEP or other adverse events. Future studies are needed to characterize better the reasons behind this increase in symptoms and potential interventions to reduce the symptom burden post-ERCP.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number, NCT05310409.

ERCP-Related Adverse Events in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic tool in primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), there is conflicting data on associated adverse events. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are to (1) compare ERCP-related adverse events in patients with and without PSC and (2) determine risk factors for ERCP-related adverse events in PSC.

Methods

Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL were searched between January 1, 2000, and May 12, 2021. Eligible studies included adults with PSC undergoing ERCP and reported at least one ERCP-related adverse event (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation) or an associated risk factor. The risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2. Raw event rates were used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and then pooled using random-effects models.

Results

Twenty studies met eligibility criteria, of which four were included in a meta-analysis comparing post-ERCP adverse events in patients with PSC (n = 715) to those without PSC (n = 9979). We found a significant threefold increase in the 30-day odds of cholangitis in PSC compared to those without (OR 3.263, 95% CI 1.076-9.896; p=0.037). However, there were no significant differences in post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, or perforation. Due to limitations in primary data, only risk factors contributing to PEP could be analyzed. Accidental passage of the guidewire into the pancreatic duct (OR 7.444, 95% CI 3.328-16.651; p < 0.001; I 2 = 65.0%) and biliary sphincterotomy (OR 4.802, 95% CI 1.916-12.033; p=0.001; I 2 = 73.1%) were associated with higher odds of PEP in a second meta-analysis including five studies.

Conclusions

In the context of limited comparative data and heterogeneity, PSC patients undergoing ERCP have higher odds of cholangitis despite the majority receiving antibiotics. Additionally, accidental wire passage and biliary sphincterotomy increased the odds of PEP. Future studies on ERCP-related risks and preventive strategies are needed.

Does ERCP position matter? A randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and complications of left lateral versus prone position (POSITION study)

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is traditionally performed with patients in the prone position (PP). However, this poses a potentially increased risk of anesthetic complications. An alternative is the left lateral (LL) decubitus position, which is commonly used for endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to compare cannulation rate, time, and outcomes in ERCP performed in LL versus PP. Patients and methods  We conducted a non-inferiority, prospective, randomized control trial with 1:1 randomization to either LL or PP position. Patients > 18 years of age with native papillae requiring a therapeutic ERCP were recruited between March 2017 and November 2018 in a single tertiary center. Results  A total of 253 patients were randomized; 132 to LL (52.2 %) and 121 to PP (47.8 %). Cannulation rates were 97.0 % in LL vs 99.2 % in PP (difference -2.2 % (one-sided 95 % CI: -5 % to 0.6 %). Median time to biliary cannulation was 03:50 minutes in LL vs 02:57 minutes in PP ( P  = 0.62). Pancreatitis rates were 2.3 % in LL vs 5.8 % in PP ( P  = 0.20). There were significantly lower radiation doses used in PP (0.23 mGy/m ² in LL vs 0.16 mGy/m ² in PP, P  = 0.008) without a difference in fluoroscopy times. Conclusions  Our analysis comparing LL to PP during ERCP shows comparable procedural and anesthetic outcomes, with significantly lower radiation exposure when performed in PP. We conclude that ERCP undertaken in the LL position is not inferior to PP, except for higher radiation exposure, and should be considered as a safe alternate position for patients undergoing ERCP.

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.

Prevention of pancreatitis after stent implantation for distal malignant biliary strictures: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biliary stent placement remains a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary strictures (DMBS). The incidence of post-ERCP-pancreatitis (PEP) significantly increases in patients receiving fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) who undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of prevention of PEP after stent implantation for DMBSs. The following operational variables were evaluated: (1) stent type (plastic or metal stent); (2) stent location (above or across the sphincter of Oddi); (3) prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement; (4) endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched to identify eligible studies up to October 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using fixed- or random- effects models.

EXPERT OPINION

1. PEP occurs more frequently in DMBS patients with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to that plastic stent (PS). 2. The PEP incidence is higher in covered stents than that in uncovered self-expandable metal stents (USEMS), but not significantly. 3. PEP incidence increases in patients receiving transpapillary FCSEMS placement, particularly when there is an absence of pancreatic duct dilation, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting is recommended for these patients. 4. Limited studies with small sample indicate that there is no significant difference in PEP incidence between transpapillary and suprapapillary stents placement for DMBS. 5. Limited studies indicate that EST does not significantly affect the incidence of pancreatitis in DMBS patients.

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.

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.

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.

Adverse Events Associated With Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Pancreatography

OBJECTIVES

Data regarding the safety of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) are limited compared with biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The aim of this study was to determine adverse events (AEs) associated with therapeutic ERP.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study examined consecutive therapeutic ERPs with the primary intention of cannulating the pancreatic duct. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 3023 ERPs were performed in 1288 patients (mean age, 50.3 years; 57.8% female) from January 2000 to January 2017. Overall AE rate was 18.9% with abdominal pain requiring admission (9.8%) and post-ERP pancreatitis (5.7%) being most common. On multivariate analysis, female sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9-2.9), acute recurrent pancreatitis (aOR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.7-15.3), chronic pancreatitis (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6), and pancreatic sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.4-3.3) were associated with an increased risk of overall AEs. Pancreatic sphincterotomy (aOR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.5-2.4) and therapeutic stenting (aOR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2) also increased the risk of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 1 in 5 patients who undergo therapeutic ERP will experience an AE; however, the rates of major AEs, including post-ERP pancreatitis, bleeding, and perforation, are low.

Emerging Therapies to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Effect of calcineurin inhibitor on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with liver transplantation: a propensity-matched cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

A calcineurin inhibitor may alter pancreatic function and inflammatory reaction. This study aimed to determine the possible pharmacologic effect of the calcineurin inhibitor, tacrolimus, on pancreatic function, and to determine its preventive effect on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in liver transplantation (LT) patients.

METHODS

The serum amylase and lipase values before and after LT were compared. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was compared between non-LT and LT patients, using propensity score matching method.

RESULTS

Median serum amylase values (normal range, 19 to 86 U/L) were 49.0 U/L (38.0 to 68.0) before LT and 27.0 U/L (19.3 to 36.8) after LT, and median serum lipase values (normal range, 7 to 59 U/L) were 40.0 U/L (26.5 to 54.0) before LT and 10.5 U/L (6.0 to 21.0) after LT. Both serum amylase and lipase values significantly decreased after LT (p < 0.001), and to a level comparable to chronic pancreatitis. There was a marginal significant difference between the non-LT and LT groups before the propensity score matching with respect to frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis (16 [3.2%] in non-LT group vs. 2 [0.9%] in LT group, p = 0.069). After propensity score matching, a marginal significant difference still existed with respect to frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis (7 [4.8%] in non-LT group vs. 1 [0.7%] in LT group, p = 0.067).

CONCLUSION

The immunosuppression with calcineurin inhibitor may reduce not only the pancreatic enzyme dynamics but also inciting inflammatory event including post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

100 mg rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic stents both significantly reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparison of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between them in high-risk patients is absent. We conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacies of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients and help us decide which is preferred in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was done to identify RCTs published in English full-text. Interventions included 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) and pancreatic stents. Only studies with high-risk patients of PEP were included. Meta-analyses of NSAIDs and pancreatic stents were conducted respectively. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian method was performed.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, 8 on pancreatic stents and 6 on 100 mg rectal NSAIDs in high-risk patients. There was no direct comparison between them. After excluding an outlier study on NSAIDs (n = 144), meta-analyses showed they both significantly and statistically reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients (pancreatic stents: n = 8 studies, random-effects risk ratio (RR)0.41, 95%CI 0.30-0.56, I = 0%; NSAIDs: n = 5 studies, random-effects RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.25-0.54, I = 0%). And network meta-analysis showed efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs was equal to pancreatic stents (random-effects RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.50-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) seems equally significant to pancreatic stents in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. Considering the cost-effectiveness and safety, 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin may be preferred.

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in low-risk patients

Background:

Evidence shows that rectal indomethacin (RI) reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The prophylactic role of RI in low-risk patients has not yet been identified. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP in low-risk patients.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP. RI was available starting November 2012. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected.

Results:

The study population included 2238 patients who underwent ERCP (1055 in the RI group and 1183 in the control group). PEP was diagnosed in 107 patients (4.8%). In a multivariate model of consecutive patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 55% (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.94; P=0.03). In a multivariate model that included 1874 (84%) low-risk patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 62% (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19-0.74; P=0.004). Propensity-matched group analysis was performed for low-risk native papilla patients. RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 61% (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18-0.8; P=0.009).

Conclusion:

RI reduced PEP in consecutive as well as low-risk patients. RI should be administrated in consecutive patients unless contraindicated. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Real-World Practice Patterns in the Era of Rectal Indomethacin for Prophylaxis Against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a High-Risk Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of indomethacin suppositories for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients was established in a landmark trial published in 2012. The aims of this study were to measure the adoption of indomethacin prophylaxis in widespread clinical practice, evaluate concurrent trends in pancreatic duct (PD) stent utilization, and estimate the impact of these changes on PEP in a high-risk population.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a commercial database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health, Somers, NY) that aggregates electronic health records from 26 US healthcare systems from 2009 to 2018. Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and were at high risk for PEP based on narrow criteria. PEP was defined as an emergency department or hospital admission 1-5 days after ERCP with an associated diagnosis of pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Twenty six thousand eight hundred twenty ERCPs were performed on this high-risk cohort from 2009 to 2018. The overall PEP rate during the study period was 8.6%. There was no decrease in PEP rates from 2012 to 2018. Beginning in 2012, indomethacin usage increased linearly (P < 0.001), but remained below 50% in 2018. As indomethacin increased, utilization of PD stents declined abruptly from 2013 to 2014 (40.7%-8.5%) and trended to a nadir of 3.0%.

DISCUSSION

Despite its low cost, widespread availability, and level I evidence of benefit in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, the adoption of rectal indomethacin during ERCP has been slow and the medication continues to be under-utilized. In parallel, the PD stent usage has declined dramatically. The lack of change in PEP rates during the study period could be attributable to the persistent low usage of rectal indomethacin or the decline in PD stent use. Further educational efforts and quality assurance measures are warranted to ensure that rectal indomethacin and PD stent placement are more appropriately used in clinical practice.

Tacrolimus and Indomethacin Are Safe and Effective at Reducing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients Who Have Undergone Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Biliary complications occur in up to 25% of patient following liver transplantation and are often managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Pancreatitis is the most common adverse event after ERCP (PEP). Tacrolimus and rectal indomethacin have each been reported to reduce risk of PEP. We investigated the incidence of PEP in patients who have undergone ERCP after liver transplantation and the effectiveness of tacrolimus and/or indomethacin in reducing risk of PEP.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 337 patients who underwent ERCP (n = 937 procedures) for biliary complications after liver transplantation from June 1, 2007 through December 1, 2015. After June 1, 2012, rectal indomethacin (100 mg) was routinely administered at the conclusion of the ERCP unless patients had contraindications. Indomethacin was given after 286 ERCP procedures. After excluding patients with acute/chronic rejection, 323 patients were maintained on a stable dose of tacrolimus prior to ERCP (901 procedures). We collected data on demographic and clinical variables, pre-procedural tacrolimus trough levels, and development of PEP. We calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between tacrolimus and indomethacin use and risk of PEP using mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was development of PEP; secondary outcomes included the development moderate-to-severe PEP, cholangitis and bleeding.

RESULTS

PEP occurred after 2.2% of ERCP procedures. A trough level of tacrolimus above 2.5 ng/mL was associated with 79% lower odds of PEP (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.72; P = .01). Indomethacin was associated with a 91% reduction in risk of PEP (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.85; P = .03). Indomethacin use did not affect rates of bleeding or cholangitis or decrease in glomerular filtration rate. In patients with trough levels of tacrolimus above 2.5 ng/mL, addition of indomethacin reduced the odds of PEP by 93% compared with patients who were unexposed to indomethacin. (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.90; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of patients who underwent ERCP for biliary complications after liver transplantation, we found trough levels of tacrolimus above 2.5 ng/mL to significantly reduce risk for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin after ERCP significantly decreased rates of pancreatitis, and reduced risk further in patients given tacrolimus. Administration of both drugs prevented patients from developing moderate or severe pancreatitis. Indomethacin did not worsen renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alleviate severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by inhibiting inflammation and reducing apoptosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The prophylactic effect of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis has been observed for a long time. However, whether the selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs possess similar abilities and the mechanisms by which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs work remain unclear. The present study aimed to determine the protective effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP pancreatitis in a rat model and examine underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

Thirty-two female rats were equally and randomly divided into four groups: the sham group, post-ERCP pancreatitis model group, indomethacin-pretreated group, and parecoxib-pretreated group. Indomethacin or parecoxib was delivered 30 min prior to surgery; 24 h after post-ERCP pancreatitis establishment, the rats were sacrificed. Serum amylase and lipase activities, inflammatory cytokine release, pancreatic histopathological scores, neutrophil infiltration, and the expression pattern cyclooxygenase at the protein level and pancreatic apoptosis were quantified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Both indomethacin and parecoxib inhibited the activities of serum amylase and lipase and reduced the severity of pancreatic histopathology. Mechanistically, both drugs decreased the expression level of cyclooxygenase 2; however, they had no influence on the cyclooxygenase 1 protein level. Moreover, they reduced inflammatory cytokine release, neutrophil infiltration into the pancreas, and NF-κB p65 activation. Notably, we found that apoptotic cells in the pancreas were remarkably diminished after the administration of both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs exert protective effects against post-ERCP pancreatitis by restraining inflammation and reducing acinar cell apoptosis through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2.

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.

Practice patterns of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis techniques in the United States: a survey of advanced endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement (PPS) and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to reduce the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk individuals and suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in average-risk individuals. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP. Previous surveys of European endoscopists revealed low adoption of PPS or rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP. We sought to capture current practice in the prevention of PEP among endoscopists in the United States involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.

METHODS

An anonymous online 16-item survey was e-mailed to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.

RESULTS

Of the 233 endoscopists who were invited to participate, 62 responded (26.7%). Most respondents reported working in tertiary referral centers (57; 95.0%) and performing ERCP for greater than 5 years (44; 74.6%). All respondents (60; 100.0%) reported working with fellows. Most PPS users (41; 72.0%) reported use of PPS in high-risk patients only and using PPS for PEP in ≤25% of ERCPs (38; 64.4%). Most respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for high-risk patients only (34; 59.7%) compared with respondents (23; 40.1%) who reported using rectal NSAIDs for prevention of PEP in average-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Most respondents (49; 83.0%) also reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Among endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowships in the United States, rectal NSAIDs are used more frequently than PPS in the prevention of PEP. Despite mounting evidence supporting the use of rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP in average-risk patients, less than half of the respondents in this survey reported such practice.

Rectal indometacin dose escalation for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although rectal indometacin 100 mg is effective in reducing the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pancreatitis incidence remains high. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dose regimens of rectal indometacin on the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial, we enrolled patients from six tertiary medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients were those at high risk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositories and a placebo suppository (standard-dose group) or three 50 mg indometacin suppositories (high-dose group). 4 h after the procedure, patients assigned to the high-dose group received an additional 50 mg indometacin suppository, whereas patients in the standard-dose group received an additional placebo suppository. The randomisation schedule, stratified according to study centre and with no other restrictions, was computer generated by an investigator who was uninvolved in the clinical care of any participants, distributed to the sites, and kept by personnel not directly involved with the study. These same personnel were responsible for packaging the drug and placebo in opaque envelopes. Patients, study personnel, and treating physicians were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome of the study was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912716, and enrolment is complete.

FINDINGS

Between July 9, 2013, and March 22, 2018, 1037 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose (n=515) or high-dose indometacin (n=522). Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and 65 (12%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (risk ratio [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 0·87-1·61; p=0·32). We observed 19 adverse events that were potentially attributable to study drug. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 14 (1%) of 1037 patients-six (1%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and eight (2%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (p=0·79). Three (1%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group developed acute kidney injury versus none in the standard-dose group (p=0·25). A non-ST elevation myocardial infarction occurred in the standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP. A transient ischaemic attack occurred in the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP. All 19 adverse events, in addition to the 141 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission to hospital. We observed no allergic reactions or deaths at 30 day follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

Dose escalation to rectal indometacin 200 mg did not confer any advantage compared with the standard 100 mg regimen, with pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients. Current practice should continue unchanged. Further research should consider the pharmacokinetics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to determine the optimal timing of their administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP.

FUNDING

American College of Gastroenterology.

Methods and outcome of the endoscopic treatment of ampullary tumors

Ampullary tumors are rare neoplasms but increasingly encountered due to an increase in diagnostic procedures, mainly upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment of these tumors are described and recommendations given based on the most recent literature.

Pharmacologic management and prevention of acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The present article will focus in pharmacologic agents that have been studied to improve acute pancreatitis outcomes, and to prevent the disease at different levels.

RECENT FINDINGS

Too little and too much early fluid resuscitation can be harmful. The optimal volume, rate, and duration of intravenous fluid therapy is still unknown. Nonopioid analgesics should be the first line of analgesia in patients with acute pancreatitis. A few pharmacologic agents evaluated in acute pancreatitis have resulted in positive pilot trials; however, larger randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are needed before final conclusions. Statin use is associated with lower incidence of acute pancreatitis in the general population and ongoing studies are evaluating its preventive role in acute pancreatitis recurrences. The preventive role of rectal indomethacin in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is indisputable, with subject selection and timing of administration requiring further investigation.

SUMMARY

There is still no proven effective disease-specific pharmacologic therapy that changes the natural history of acute pancreatitis. New therapeutic targets and pharmacologic agents are in the horizon. Careful refinement in study design is needed when planning future RCTs. There is also a need for drug development aiming at reducing the incidence of the disease and preventing its sequelae.

Quality of Care Indicators in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common and expensive condition. Improving quality of care in AP is vital to minimizing cost and improving patient outcomes. However, there has been little work accomplished toward developing and validating explicit quality indicators (QIs) in AP.

AIMS

To define quality of care in patients with AP by developing explicit QIs using standardized techniques.

METHODS

We used the UCLA/RAND Delphi panel approach to combine a comprehensive literature review with the collective judgment of experts to identify a defined set of process measures for AP.

RESULTS

We produced 164 candidate QIs after a comprehensive literature review. After Delphi review, 75 had a median rating ≥ 7. We excluded 11 QIs where the disagreement index exceeded 1.0 and combined indicators overlapping in content to produce a final list of 22 QIs. Overall, 8 QIs related to diagnosis, prevention, or determination of etiology, 2 QIs focused on determination of severity, 3 QIs captured fluid resuscitation, 2 QIs measured nutrition, 1 QI use of antibiotics, and 6 QIs captured endoscopic or surgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed 22 QIs spanning the spectrum of AP management including diagnosis, risk stratification, and pharmacological and endoscopic therapy. These QIs will facilitate future quality improvement by practitioners and organizations who treat patients with AP and further identify areas that are amenable to improvement to enhance patient care. We anticipate that this QI set will represent the first step in determining a framework for demonstrating value in the care of patients with AP.

Rectal Indomethacin and Spraying of Duodenal Papilla With Epinephrine Increases Risk of Pancreatitis Following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin and spraying of the duodenal papilla with epinephrine might reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a randomized trial to compare the effects of the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine (IE) vs indomethacin plus saline (IS) in prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at 10 centers in China, from February 2017 to October 2017, of 1158 patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were assigned randomly to groups given IE (n = 576) or IS (n = 582). All patients received a single dose of rectal indomethacin within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of dilute epinephrine (IE group) or saline (IS group) then was sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall PEP. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The study was terminated at the interim analysis for safety concerns and futility. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 49 patients in the IE group (8.5%) and in 31 patients in the IS group (5.3%) (relative risk, 1.60, 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .033). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients with postsphincterotomy bleeding (2.1% in the IE group and 1.5% in the IS group) and biliary infection (1.2% in the IE group and 2.2% in the IS group).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, we found the combination of rectal indomethacin with papillary epinephrine spraying increased the risk of PEP compared with indomethacin alone. Spray epinephrine should not be used with rectal indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT03057769.

A randomized trial comparing the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose administration of rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The before-procedure or after-procedure rectal indomethacin administration was shown to be useful in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We designed this prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose rectal indomethacin administration in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We enrolled patients who underwent the ERCP in Taipei Mackay Memorial Hospital from 2016 June to 2017 November. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: single and double-dose groups. The primary endpoint was the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

A total 162 patients participated in this study, and there were 87 patients randomly assigned to the single-dose group, and 75 patients were assigned to the double-dose group. In the high-risk patients, the incidence of PEP was lower in double-dose patients (4.8%) than the single-dose patients (9.5%), but there was no significant difference (P =.24). Difficult cannulation was the only 1 risk factor for PEP after rectal indomethacin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose rectal indomethacin administration immediately after ERCP in general population is good enough to prevent PEP, but difficult cannulation could induce the PEP frequency up to 15.4% even under rectal indomethacin use.

Organ Failure Due to Systemic Injury in Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis may be associated with both local and systemic complications. Systemic injury manifests in the form of organ failure, which is seen in approximately 20% of all cases of acute pancreatitis and defines "severe acute pancreatitis." Organ failure typically develops early in the course of acute pancreatitis, but also may develop later due to infected pancreatic necrosis-induced sepsis. Organ failure is the most important determinant of outcome in acute pancreatitis. We review here the current understanding of the risk factors, pathophysiology, timing, impact on outcome, and therapy of organ failure in acute pancreatitis. As we discuss the pathophysiology of severe systemic injury, the distinctions between markers and mediators of severity are highlighted based on evidence supporting their causality in organ failure. Emphasis is placed on clinically relevant end points of organ failure and the mechanisms underlying the pathophysiological perturbations, which offer insight into potential therapeutic targets to treat.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, lights and shadows: Handle with care

The role of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has dramatically changed in the last years, mainly into that of a therapeutic procedure. The treatment of benign biliary disease, like “difficult” choledocolithiasis, with endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation combined with endoscopic sphinterotomy has proven an effective and safe technique. Moreover, safety in ERCP has improved as well, with the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and patient-to-patient transmission of infections. The advent of self-expandable metal stenting has radically changed the management of biliopancreatic malignant strictures, while the role for therapy of benign strictures is still controversial. In addition, cholangioscopy (though the direct visualization of the biliopancreatic ductal system) has allowed for characterization of indeterminate biliary strictures and facilitated rescue therapy of large biliary stones deemed removable. Encouraging data from tissue ablation techniques, such as photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation, need to be confirmed by large sample size clinical controlled trials. On the other hand, we have no drug-coated stents yet available to implant and evidence for the use of biodegradable stents is still weak. The competency and privileging of ERCP and endoscopic ultrasonography have been analyzed longer but the switch between the two procedures, at the same time, is becoming ordinary; as such, the endoscopist interested in this field should undergo parallel edification through training plans. Finally, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy’s statement on non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopy is not actually endorsed by the European Society of Anaesthesiology, having many medical-legal implications in some European countries.

Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Post-procedure Rectal Indomethacin

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP. Rectal indomethacin has been widely administered to decrease the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients. However, it cannot completely prevent the occurrence of PEP. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the risk factors for PEP in high-risk patients receiving post-ERCP indomethacin.

METHODS

From June 2012 to July 2015, patients undergoing ERCP and at high risk for PEP in three tertiary hospitals in China were enrolled. All patients received indomethacin after the procedure. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the risk factors.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety patients at high risk for PEP received post-ERCP indomethacin. The incidence of overall PEP and moderate-to-severe PEP was 8.0 and 1.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (OR 2.73; 95%CI 1.38-5.43; p = 0.004), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 4.53; 95%CI 1.60-12.81; p = 0.004), number of cannulation attempts ≥ 13 (OR 2.00; 95%CI 1.07-3.77; p = 0.030), inadvertent pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation ≥ 1 (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.04-4.90; p = 0.040), and pancreatic contrast injections ≥ 1 (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.02-5.23; p = 0.046) were high risk factors for overall PEP. For moderate-to-severe PEP, suspected SOD (OR 4.67; 1.19-18.35; p = 0.027), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 7.95; 1.39-44.97; p = 0.010), and more cannulation attempts (OR 3.71; 1.09-12.65; p = 0.036) were three independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of high-risk patients had PEP even receiving post-ERCP rectal indomethacin. The independent risk factors included suspected SOD, hilar stricture, more cannulation attempts, inadvertent PD cannulation, and PD contrast injections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02709421.

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.

How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Recent advances in prophylaxis have improved but not eliminated this problem, underscoring the importance of ongoing research toward this goal. This review aims to provide an evidence-based approach to post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention through patient selection, risk stratification, procedural technique, and multimodality prophylaxis, and discusses ongoing and future research initiatives in this important area.

Endoscopic resection of advanced ampullary adenomas: a single-center 14-year retrospective cohort study

Background

Endoscopic ampullectomy has been recognized as a safe and reliable means to resect selective tumors of the ampulla of Vater and is associated with lower morbidity and mortality rates compared to surgical resection. Success rates range from 42 to 92%, with recurrences reported in up to 33%. Studies on endoscopic resection of advanced lesions such as those with intraductal extension of adenoma (IEA) and lateral spreading adenomas (LSA) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the technical success, complications, and recurrence of endoscopic resection of ampullary adenomas, including advanced lesions.

Methods

All patients referred to the Erasmus Medical Center for endoscopic resection of an ampullary lesion were retrospectively identified between 2002 and 2016. Endoscopic success was defined as complete excision of the adenoma, irrespective of the number of attempts, in the absence of recurrence.

Results

We included 87 patients with a median age of 65 years. Of these, 56 patients (64%) had an adenoma confined to the ampulla (ACA), 20 patients (23%) had an LSA, and 11 patients (13%) were treated for an IEA. The median lesion sizes were 24.6 mm, 41.4 mm, and 16.3 mm, respectively (P < 0.001). Complications occurred in 22 patients (25.3%), of which hemorrhage was most prevalent (12.6%), followed by perforation (8.1%). Complications were equally divided (P = 0.874). The median follow-up duration was 21.1 months (12–45.9) for ACA, 14.7 months (4.2–34.5) for LSA, and 5.8 months (3.7–22.0) for IEA (P = 0.051). Endoscopic resection was curative in 87.5% of patients with an ACA, 85% in patients with an LSA, and in only one patient with an IEA (P < 0.001). Recurrence occurred in 10 patients (11.5%) (P = 0.733).

Conclusion

Endoscopic ampullectomy is safe and highly successful in selected patients with an adenoma with or without lateral spreading. Outcomes of endoscopic treatment adenomas with an intraductal extension are less favorable and in these cases surgery should be considered.

Different pattern of risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with biliary stricture

OBJECTIVE

To identify possible risk factors associated with post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in biliary stricture (BS), common bile duct stone (CBDS) and unselected patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive ERCP patients with native papilla from January 2010 to December 2014 in Xijing Hospital were eligible. Patient-related and procedure-related parameters were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was PEP. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Totally 3133 unselected patients were included. 695 (22.2%) had BS alone and 1893 (60.4%) had CBDS alone. PEP incidence was higher in BS group compared with CBDS group (6.8% vs. 3.8%, p = .001). Among patient-related factors, duodenal stenosis (OR, 2.74; 95%CI, 1.14-6.59) and hilar stricture (OR, 2.59; 95%CI, 1.41-4.77) were found to be independently associated with PEP in BS group. While female gender (OR, 2.11; 95%CI, 1.20-3.73) and normal total bilirubin (OR, 1.93; 95%CI, 1.13-3.32) were related to PEP in CBDS group. Among procedure-related factors, cannulation time ≥ 5 min (OR, 2.38; 95%CI, 1.06-5.33) and precut (OR, 3.20; 95%CI, 1.35-7.59) was respectively the only independent risk factor for PEP in BS and CBDS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BS and CBDS had different patterns of patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP. The prophylaxis of PEP may need to be individualized based on different indications.

Fluid hydration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in average- to high-risk patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs (FLUYT trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP and may run a severe course. Evidence suggests that vigorous periprocedural hydration can prevent PEP, but studies to date have significant methodological drawbacks. Importantly, evidence for its added value in patients already receiving prophylactic rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking and the cost-effectiveness of the approach has not been investigated. We hypothesize that combination therapy of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural hydration would significantly lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to rectal NSAIDs alone in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP.

Methods

The FLUYT trial is a multicenter, parallel group, open label, superiority randomized controlled trial. A total of 826 moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP that receive prophylactic rectal NSAIDs will be randomized to a control group (no fluids or normal saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg/h and 3 L/24 h) or intervention group (lactated Ringer’s solution with 20 mL/kg over 60 min at start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h thereafter). The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include PEP severity, hydration-related complications, and cost-effectiveness.

Discussion

The FLUYT trial design, including hydration schedule, fluid type, and sample size, maximize its power of identifying a potential difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

Trial registration

EudraCT: 2015-000829-37. Registered on 18 February 2015.

ISRCTN: 13659155. Registered on 18 May 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2583-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.