Comparison between loop-tip guidewire-assisted and conventional endoscopic cannulation in high risk patients

A novel concept of passive loop-forming wire-guided biliary cannulation using an ultra-deep angled tip guidewire (with video)

Background and study aims Wire-guided biliary cannulation (WGBC) is a standard technique during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related interventions. However, no dedicated guidewire is available. We investigated a novel "passive loop-forming WGBC" concept using a 0.035-inch ultra-deep angled tip guidewire. Patients and methods This single-arm, single-center, retrospective study included consecutive 111 patients who underwent passive loop-forming WGBC as the first biliary intervention between October 2021 and December 2022. Results WGBCs were completed within 5 minutes and overall were performed at a median papillary negotiation time of 81 seconds (interquartile range [IQR], 39-170) and 114 seconds (IQR, 49-303) in 83 (74.8%) and 106 (95.5%) cases, respectively. Logistic regression analysis identified age ≥ 80 years (odds ratio [OR]: 3.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.12-11.31) and unintentional pancreatic guidewire insertion (OR: 17.67, 95% CI: 5.75-54.31) as significant risk factors for failed WGBC within 5 minutes. Among the 106 obtained cannulations, the guidewire leading part formed a small-looped tip and wide-looped body in 83 (78.3%) and 23 (21.7%) cases, respectively. Adverse events included post-procedure pancreatitis (2/111 [1.8%]) and guidewire penetration (3/111 [2.7%]). Conclusions Passive loop-forming WGBC using an ultra-deep angled tip guidewire is a feasible procedure.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.

Troubleshooting Difficult Bile Duct Access: Advanced ERCP Cannulation Techniques, Percutaneous Biliary Drainage, or EUS-Guided Rendezvous Technique?

Despite experienced hands and availability of various well-designed catheters and wires, selective bile duct cannulation may still fail in 10–20% of cases during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In case standard ERCP cannulation technique fails, salvage options include advanced ERCP cannulation techniques such as double-guidewire technique (DGW) with or without pancreatic stenting and precut papillotomy, percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided Rendezvous (EUS-RV) ERCP. If the pancreatic duct is inadvertently entered during cannulation attempts, DGW technique is a reasonable next step, which can be followed by pancreatic stenting to reduce risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Studies suggest that early precut papillotomy is not associated with a higher risk of PEP, while needle-knife fistulotomy is the preferred method. For patients with critical clinical condition who may not be fit for endoscopy, surgically altered anatomy in which endoscopic biliary drainage is not feasible, and non-communicating multisegmental biliary obstruction, PBD has a unique role to provide successful biliary drainage efficiently in this particular population. As endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage techniques advance, EUS-RV ERCP has been increasingly employed to guide bile duct access and cannulation with satisfactory clinical outcomes and is especially valuable for benign pathology at centres where expertise is available. Endoscopists should become familiar with each technique’s advantages and limitations before deciding the most appropriate treatment that is tailored to patient’s anatomy and clinical needs.

Experimental study of loop shape using 0.025-inch ERCP guidewires (with videos)

Background and study aims  Duct penetration by the guidewire sometimes occurs during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, which might lead to adverse events such as acute pancreatitis. To prevent duct penetration, making a loop shape with the guidewire might provide a useful technique. The aim of this experimental study was thus to evaluate which types of guidewire can most easily form a loop shape. Methods  This experimental study evaluated six guidewires (0.025-inch, angle type): MICHISUJI; VisiGlide 2; Jagwire; Pathcorse; RevoWave-α UltraHard 2; and M-through. Flexibility of the tip, shaft stiffness, and the ability to form a loop were evaluated for each type in an ex vivo model. Deformation behavior was also recorded on video, and factors suitable for making a loop shape in each guidewire were evaluated. Results  Flexibility and stiffness of each guidewire differed significantly. During an experimental study regrading deformation behavior before forming a loop shape, maximum load was lower for MICHISUJI (6.8 g) than for other guidewires (Jagwire [11.3 g], M-through [12.9 g], VisiGlide 2 [12.9 g], Revowave [21 g], and Pathcorse [25.4 g]). Mean time required to achieve a loop shape was as follows: MICHISUJI, 6.2 seconds; M-through, 8.7 seconds; VisiGlide 2, 11.0 seconds; and Revowave, 7.1 seconds. Conclusion  In conclusion, characteristics of flexibility and stiffness among guidewires were significantly different in the ex-vivo study. In the experimental study regrading deformation behavior until achieving a loop shape, maximum load also differed. To evaluate whether guidewires easily form a loop shape, clinical study is needed.

Biliary cannulation with contrast and guide-wire versus exclusive guide-wire: A prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The use of exclusive guide-wire cannulation (e-GW) instead of contrast injection reduces post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and pre-cutting and increases cannulation rate. Herein, we intend to compare e-GW with the hybrid technique (GW-C and/or contrast injection).

METHODS

Prospective single-center randomized comparative study, which included all patients referred to ERCP to our unit. Patients with non-naïve papilla; previous ERCP; direct infundibulotomy, ampullectomy, Billroth II gastrectomy or pancreatic sphincterotomy and patients lost to follow up were excluded.

RESULTS

727 consecutive patients were assessed. Of these, 588 naïve papilla patients were included and randomized to receive e-GW (n = 299) or GW-C (n = 289) for selective biliary cannulation. The mean age was 60.3 years and 60.5% were women. PEP occurred in 15(5%) cases in e-GW group and 9(3.1%) in the GW-C group (p = 0.29). Time to reach deep cannulation was faster in the latter group (75% < 5 min vs. 50.2% < 5 min, p<0.001). > 10 min until cannulation was observed in 21% vs. 10% of the ERCPs (groups e-GW and GW-C, respectively, p < 0.001). Total ERCP time was also shorter in the GW-C group (12 vs. 10 min; p < 0.001). Pre-cut (23.8 vs.11.8%, p < 0.001) and pancreatic sphincterotomy as a pre-cut technique (15.8 vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001) were used more frequently in the e-GW group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to exclusive G-W- assisted biliary cannulation, the hybrid technique did not significantly reduce the PEP rate, however it promoted faster cannulation and, consequently, reduced the total procedure time and the use of pre-cut techniques.

Wire-guided biliary cannulation: a comprehensive approach to a set of techniques

Biliary cannulation represent a challenge for the endoscopists that approach to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with non-negligible rate of failure even in expert hands. In order to achieve the biliary tree, two main technique are nowadays mainly used, namely the contrast-assisted cannulation and the wire-guided cannulation (WGC) techniques. The WGC technique is widely used because it seems to be related to higher success rate of cannulation of the common bile duct and, at the same time, to lower rates of complications. Particularly, this approach is associated with lower risk of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, although the pathogenesis of this adverse event is still not completely understood. The outspread of this technique among endoscopists promoted the development of different methods of performing WGC-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, such as the touch technique, the no-touch technique and the double guide-wire cannulation. Furthermore, the variety of guide wires and accessories, with their different characteristics, contribute to make the scenario extremely heterogeneous. To date, the published studies did not highlight which is the best strategy that maximizes the rate of success and minimizes the percentage of complications, even because the experience of the operator represents an important variable that conditions the outcomes. The aim of this review is to define state of the art in WGC technique, in order to better understand the possible advantages in using this approach and to bring to light the possible area that may be object of further studies.

A multicenter randomized trial comparing the use of touch versus no-touch guidewire technique for deep biliary cannulation: the TNT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are 2 techniques described for selective bile duct guidewire cannulation, the touch (T) technique (engaging the papilla with a sphincterotome and then advancing the guidewire) and the no-touch (NT) technique (engaging the papilla only with the guidewire). The aim of this prospective, multicenter randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the 2 guidewire cannulation techniques.

METHODS

Three hundred consecutive patients with naïve papillae were enrolled in 2 groups (150 to T group and 150 to NT group). A maximum of 15 biliary cannulation attempts, for no longer than 5 minutes, or a maximum of 5 unintentional cannulations of the pancreatic duct for each group were performed. If biliary cannulation failed, the patient was crossed over to the other technique with the same parameters. The primary outcome was the guidewire cannulation success rate using either the T or NT technique. Secondary outcomes were the number of attempts and cannulation duration, number of pancreatic duct cannulations, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The primary cannulation rate was significantly higher in the T group compared with the NT group (88% vs 54%, P < .001), and the cannulation rate was significantly higher using the T technique compared with the NT technique also after crossover (77% vs 17%, P < .001). The mean number of cannulation attempts was 4.6 in the T group versus 5.5 in the NT group (P = .006), and the duration of cannulation before crossover (P < .001) and overall cannulation duration after crossover (P < .001) were significantly lower in the T group. The number of unintended pancreatic duct cannulations was statistically higher using the T technique compared with the NT technique (P = .037). The rates of adverse events did not significantly differ between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results clearly indicated that the T technique is superior to the NT technique for biliary cannulation. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01954602.).

A prospective randomized study of loop-tip versus straight-tip guidewire in wire-guided biliary cannulation

BACKGROUND

Wire-guided cannulation has been widely accepted as a useful technique for achieving selective biliary access because it has significantly increased the success rate of biliary cannulation compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation. Unlike conventional guidewires with a straight tip, a loop-tip guidewire (LGW) has a closed distal loop that may facilitate less traumatic access through the epithelial folds of the intra-duodenal biliary segments. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of a LGW with a straight-tip guidewire (SGW) in achieving successful selective biliary cannulation.

METHODS

From December 2014 to December 2015, we performed 192 wire-guided biliary cannulations for a naïve papilla in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the LGW group (n = 96) or the SGW group (n = 96). Our study protocol did not include crossover to the other guidewire arm if randomized wire-guided cannulation proved unsuccessful within the first 10 min.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in primary successful biliary cannulation between the two groups (LGW group: 86.5%; SGW group: 77.1%; p = 0.134). The rate and the mean number of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulations during wire-guided biliary cannulation were significantly lower in the LGW group than in the SGW group (LGW group: 14.6%; SGW group: 28.1%; p = 0.034; LGW group: 0.2 ± 0.5; SGW group: 0.6 ± 1.3; p = 0.007). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 5.2% of patients in the LGW group and 8.3% of patients in the SGW group (p = 0.567).

CONCLUSIONS

The biliary cannulation rate of the LGW was not significantly different from those of conventional guidewires. Use of the LGW was associated with a lower rate of unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation during wire-guided biliary cannulation than use of the SGW.