Pancreatic Stent or Rectal Indomethacin-Which Better Prevents Post-ERCP Pancreatitis?: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Effect of rectal indomethacin on the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis: a prospective randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones.

METHODS

a total of 167 patients undergoing ERCP between November 2019 and November 2022 for CBD stones in the First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University were prospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into an indomethacin group (n = 58) and a control group (n = 109). The primary endpoint was the percent of patients who experienced PEP.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in a total of 26 patients (15.57 %); four patients (6.90 %) in the indomethacin group and 22 (20.18 %) in the control group (p = 0.042). Mild, moderate and severe PEP was observed in three (5.17 %), one (1.72 %) and zero patients, respectively, in the indomethacin group, and in eleven (10.09 %), nine (8.26 %) and two (1.83 %) patients, respectively, in the control group. There was one case (0.92 %) of death due to PEP in the control group. No cases of moderate or severe bleeding were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

rectal indomethacin is an effective and safe method to prevent PEP for patients with CBD stones undergoing ERCP.

The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stents against complications of post-endoscopic papillectomy or endoscopic ampullectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection has been increasingly adopted for neoplasms in the major duodenal papilla. Previous studies have reached varying conclusions on whether prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement is an effective measure against post-procedure complications. We aimed to investigate whether PS could reduce the incidence of post-procedure complications.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to 25 December 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) comparing prophylactic PS and no PS against post-procedure complications. The main outcomes measurements were post-procedure pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation and late papillary stenosis.

RESULTS

23 RCSs (1001 subjects) and 2 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the RCSs showed that prophylactic PS decreased the odds of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.36-1.40; p = 0.325) as well as late papillary stenosis (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.07-1.75; p = 0.200; I ² =0%) and increased the odds of bleeding (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.50-3.46; p = 0.572; I ² = 0%) and perforation (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.33-15.50; p = 0.412; I ² = 0%) but not significantly. Sensitivity analysis illustrated prophylactic PS significantly decreased the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.80; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

PS placement was prophylactic against post-procedure complications although not significantly. Sensitivity analysis suggests the significant effect of prophylactic PS against post-procedure pancreatitis. More RCTs are required to validate the statistical significance of our results and potentially relevant characteristics improving the prophylactic efficacy of stents.

Indomethacin down-regulating HMGB1 and TNF-α to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background and aims: Several articles demonstrated that non-steroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs) were effective in reducing the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). However, studies revealed inconsistent results. The mechanism of NSAIDs in preventing PEP is still little known. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis and further to explore the mechanism of NSAIDs for prevention of PEP. Methods: Patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg rectal indomethacin or glycerin suppository 15-20 min before ERCP. The primary outcome was the rate of PEP. And the levels of serum HMGB1 and TNF-α were also measured before ERCP and 3 and 24 h after ERCP. Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were carried out to estimate the independent risk factors for PEP. Results: Totally, 100 patients were enrolled, 50 received indomethacin and 50 with placebo (glycerin suppository). PEP developed in six patients in indomethacin group and 16 in the control group, the difference was significant (p = .016). The levels of HMGB1 and TNF-α were significantly decreased in indomethacin group at 3 (p < .0001) and 24 h (p < .0001) after ERCP, compared to the control group. Multivariate analysis revealed that duration of ERCP (OR, 0.221; 95% CI, 0.072-0.680; p = .008) and usage of NSAIDs (OR, 0.278; 95% CI, 0.090-0.861; p = .026) were independent predictors of PEP. Conclusions: Rectal indomethacin could significantly reduce the risk of PEP by down-regulating the levels of HMGB1 and TNF-α.

Pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a major role in the investigation and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe adverse effect. Prior meta-analyses have shown that prophylactic PS was useful for preventing PEP. However, abstract reports and patients who underwent endoscopic ampullectomy were included in the previous analyses. In addition, two meta-analyses involved non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy of PS for preventing severe PEP was different in each meta-analysis. Therefore, we performed the current meta-analysis, which included only full-text articles, and added new findings.

AIM

To reveal the efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for related RCTs. Among the reports retrieved, 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All full-text articles were published between 1993 and 2016. A total of 1475 patients were enrolled in the included studies; of these patients, 734 had a PS inserted, and 741 did not have a PS inserted. PEP and severe PEP occurrence were evaluated in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in all studies and occurred in 39 (5.3%) patients who received a PS. On the other hand, PEP occurred in 141 (19%) patients who did not receive a PS. The occurrence of PEP was significantly lower in the patients who underwent PS placement than in the patients who did not receive a PS (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < 0.001). In addition, the occurrence of severe PEP was evaluated. Notably, the occurrence of severe PEP was not observed in the stent group; however, the occurrence of severe PEP was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients who did not have a PS inserted. Severe PEP occurred significantly less often in the stent group than in the no stent group (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, prophylactic PS placement is useful for preventing PEP and severe PEP.

Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail

AIM

To investigate the location to which a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Over a ten-year period at our hospital, 296 patients underwent their first ERCP procedure and had a pancreatic stent inserted; this study included 147 patients who had ERCP performed primarily for biliary investigation and had a pancreatic stent inserted to prevent PEP. We divided these patients into two groups: 131 patients with a stent inserted into the pancreatic head (head group) and 16 patients with a stent inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail (body/tail group). Patient characteristics and ERCP factors were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Pancreatic amylase isoenzyme (p-AMY) levels in the head group were significantly higher than those in the body/tail group [138.5 (7.0-2086) vs 78.5 (5.0-1266.5), P = 0.03] [median (range)]. No cases of PEP were detected in the body/tail group [head group, 12 (9.2%)]. Of the risk factors for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (≥ p-AMY median, 131 IU/L), procedure time ≥ 60 min [odds ratio (OR) 2.65, 95%CI: 1.17-6.02, P = 0.02) and stent insertion into the pancreatic head (OR 3.80, 95%CI: 1.12-12.9, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stent insertion up to the pancreatic body or tail reduces the risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and may reduce the risk of PEP.

The impact of age on the incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background:

With advancing age there is progressive pancreatic atrophy and fibrosis, leading to tissue destruction and chronic pancreatitis that has been found to be protective against post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, there are no reports regarding the potential effect of the aging pancreatic changes on the incidence and severity of PEP. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of senile changes in the pancreas on the incidence and severity of PEP.

Methods:

A total of 2688 patients who underwent the first therapeutic ERCP at a single center were included in the final analysis of the study. Patients were classified into two groups: 1644 patients aged ≤75 years (mean age 61.56+1.26 years), group A; and 1044 patients aged >75 years (mean age 81.97+4.29 years), group B. Patients’ files were identified using a retrospective database linked to the endoscopy reporting system. Patients’ characteristic, endoscopic findings, details of intervention and rate and severity of PEP were evaluated.

Results:

No significant differences between the two groups were observed with regard to ERCP indication, patient- and technique-related risk factors for PEP, presence of periampullary diverticulum, and type of therapeutic intervention. The incidence of PEP was 5.2% in group A and 4% in group B (P=NS) with comparable grades of severity. All episodes of pancreatitis had full recovery with conventional treatment. One death occurred from respiratory arrest in each group of patients.

Conclusion:

This study shows that the pancreatic changes associated with aging do not influence the incidence and severity of PEP.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several recent studies suggested that nonsteroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs) could prevent the pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the routes of administration, the dosages of NSAIDs and the potential efficacy in reducing the severity of pancreatitis remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Elsevier and Web of Science databases up to 1 October 2016 for relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the controls, the risk of pancreatitis was much lower in the NSAIDs group (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.48-0.67, P < 0.0001). However, NSAIDs were not effective in reducing the risk of moderate to severe pancreatitis compared with placebo (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-1.00). In the subanalyses, rectal administration was the only effective route (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.62), and the risk of PEP was reduced in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.52-0.76) and case-control articles (C-Cs) (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in both RCTs and C-Cs, especially when rectally administered, but was not effective in reducing the risk of moderate to severe pancreatitis.

Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: The Role of Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stenting in the Rectal NSAID Era

BACKGROUND

Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is now the standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreatic duct stenting also reduces the risk of post- ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, but failed pancreatic duct stenting carries an increased PEP rate (up to 35%).

STUDY AIM

To assess the impact on post-ERCP pancreatitis of successful and unsuccessful pancreatic duct stent placement in the setting of universal rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.

METHODS

Between 2013-2015, all patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographys in our tertiary referral centre (where rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used routinely) were included. The electronic patient's records were reviewed and the following parameters were analysed: indication for pancreatic duct stenting; deployment success; and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 1633 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographys were performed, and pancreatic duct stenting was attempted in 324 cases (20%), with successful placement in 307 patients (95%). Contra-indications to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found in 106 (6.5%) patients. Prophylactic stenting failed in 12 of 213 patients; of whom one patient developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (8%). Eighteen (9%) patients with prophylactic pancreatic duct stents developed post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to 1.4% without prophylactic stents (RR 8.4, p=0.04).

CONCLUSION

A lack of difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis in those who underwent successful, and unsuccessful, pancreatic duct stent placement may reflect the protective effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. This data adds to evidence suggesting that pancreatic duct stenting may be less important, even in high-risk patients, with the widespread use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.