Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by epinephrine sprayed on the papilla

Prediction for post-ERCP pancreatitis in non-elderly patients with common bile duct stones: a cross-sectional study at a major Chinese tertiary hospital (2015-2023)

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis is one of the most common adverse events in ERCP-related procedures. The purpose of this study is to construct an online model to predict the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in non-elderly patients with common bile duct stones through screening of relevant clinical parameters.

METHODS

A total of 919 cases were selected from 7154 cases from a major Chinese tertiary hospital. Multivariable logistic regression model was fitted using the variables selected by the LASSO regression from 28 potential predictor variables. The internal and external validation was assessed by evaluating the receiver operating characteristic curve and the area under curve. Restricted cubic spline modelling was used to explore non-linear associations. The interactive Web application developed for risk prediction was built using the R "shiny" package.

RESULTS

The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 5.22% (48/919) and significantly higher in non-elderly patients with female, high blood pressure, the history of pancreatitis, difficult intubation, endoscopic sphincterotomy, lower alkaline phosphatase and smaller diameter of common bile duct. The predictive performance in the test and external validation set was 0.915 (95% CI, 0.858-0.972) and 0.838 (95% CI, 0.689-0.986), respectively. The multivariate restricted cubic spline results showed that the incidence of pancreatitis was increased at 33-50 years old, neutrophil percentage > 58.90%, hemoglobin > 131 g/L, platelet < 203.04 or > 241.40 × 109/L, total bilirubin > 18.39 umol / L, aspartate amino transferase < 36.56 IU / L, alkaline phosphatase < 124.92 IU / L, Albumin < 42.21 g / L and common bile duct diameter between 7.25 and 10.02 mm. In addition, a web server was developed that supports query for immediate PEP risk.

CONCLUSION

The visualized networked version of the above model is able to most accurately predict the risk of PEP in non-elderly patients with choledocholithiasis and allows clinicians to assess the risk of PEP in real time and provide preventive treatment measures as early as possible.

Prognostic Factors for Severe-to-Fatal Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

The prognostic factors associated with severe-to-fatal post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remain unclear despite the extensive number of studies on PEP. In total, 3739 ERCP patients with biliary disease with an intact papilla and indicated for ERCP were prospectively enrolled at 36 centers from April 2017 to March 2018. Those with acute pancreatitis diagnosed before ERCP, altered gastrointestinal anatomy, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status > 4 were excluded. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed on patient-related factors, operator-related factors, procedure-related factors, and preventive measures to identify potential prognostic factors for severe-to-fatal PEP. Multivariate analyses revealed pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation (OR 13.59, 95% CI 4.21-43.83, p < 0.001), post-ERCP non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration (OR 11.54, 95% CI 3.83-34.81, p < 0.001), and previous pancreatitis (OR 6.94, 95% CI 1.45-33.33, p = 0.015) as significant risk factors for severe-to-fatal PEP. Preventive measures included endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST; OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.11-0.79, p = 0.015) and prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPSs; OR 0.11, 95% CI, 0.01-0.87, p = 0.036). In biliary ERCP, pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation, NSAID administration after ERCP, and previous pancreatitis were risk factors for severe-to-fatal PEP, whereas EST and PPS were significant preventive measures for severe-to-fatal PEP.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) largely remain unknown with changing trends in ERCP use, indication, and techniques. We sought to determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP in consecutive and high-risk patients based on a systemic review and meta-analysis of patients in placebo and no-stent arms of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from the inception of each database to June 2022 to identify full-text RCTs evaluating PEP prophylaxes. The incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from the placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs were recorded for consecutive and high-risk patients. A random-effects meta-analysis for a proportions model was used to calculate PEP incidence, severity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five RCTs were found with 19,038 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. The overall cumulative incidence of PEP was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.3), predominantly among the academic centers conducting such RCTs. The cumulative incidences of severe PEP and mortality were .5% (95% CI, .3-.7) and .2% (95% CI, .08-.3), respectively, across 91 RCTs with 14,441 patients. The cumulative incidences of PEP and severe PEP were 14.1% (95% CI, 11.5-17.2) and .8% (95% CI, .4-1.6), respectively, with a mortality rate of .2% (95% CI, 0-.3) across 35 RCTs with 3733 patients at high risk of PEP. The overall trend for the incidence of PEP among patients randomized to placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs has remained unchanged from 1977 to 2022 (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PEP is 10.2% but is 14.1% among high-risk patients based on this systematic review of placebo or no-stent arms of 145 RCTs; this rate has not changed between 1977 and 2022. Severe PEP and mortality from PEP are relatively uncommon.

Combination Topical Epinephrine and Non-steroidal Inflammatory Drugs in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The utility of combination rectal NSAID and topical epinephrine (EI) or rectal NSAID and normal saline (SI) sprayed on duodenal papilla in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been studied but results have been conflicting.

AIMS

To evaluate the benefit of using combination prophylaxis in preventing PEP.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases in May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults patients who underwent ERCP and received EI versus SI were eligible for inclusion. The pooled effect was expressed as odds ratio (OR) to assess the rate of PEP, severity of PEP, and specific adverse events. The results were pooled using Reviewer Manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 4016 patients were included in the final analysis. The EI group did not demonstrate any significant benefit over SI group in preventing PEP (OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.68, 1.45], P = 0.98), irrespective of gender or the epinephrine concentration used. The tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant with P-values of 0.66 and 0.28, respectively. The addition of topical epinephrine to rectal NSAID did not improve the rate of moderate to severe PEP (OR = 0.94, P = 0.86) or PEP in high-risk patients (OR = 1.14, 95%, P = 0.73). The rates of infection, including cholangitis and sepsis (OR = 0.63, P = 0.07), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR = 1.25, P = 0.56) and procedure-related death (OR = 0.71, P = 0.59) were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of topical epinephrine did not demonstrate any benefit over rectal NSAID alone in preventing PEP or reducing other procedure-related adverse events.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy contribute to the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction? A multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the necessity of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the incidence of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with or without ES in a multicenter prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We enrolled 807 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with a native papilla at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was compared for subgroups based on stent type, placement method, and patient background. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients.

RESULTS

Plastic and metal stents (MS) were inserted in 598 and 209 patients, respectively. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was 7.9% and 7.4%, respectively among all stenting patients. The incidences of PEP with or without ES in plastic stent insertion patients, patients with MS insertion, stent insertions across the papilla, stent insertions across the papilla in patients without main pancreatic duct obstruction, and fully covered MS insertions across the papilla were compared. There was no overall significant difference in the incidence of PEP between those with or without ES. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients revealed obstruction of the main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head and epinephrine spraying on the papilla were significant factors; there was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between patients with or without ES.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sphincterotomy may not contribute to the prevention of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction, even in cases of insertion with a fully covered MS across the papilla.

Multicenter prospective cohort study of adverse events associated with biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Incidence of adverse events and preventive measures for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The reported incidence of adverse events (AEs) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) varies between 2.5% and 14%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of AEs in biliary ERCP and to specify the risk factors and preventive measures for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Patients with biliary disease with intact papilla were prospectively enrolled at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 16,032 ERCP procedures were performed at the 36 hospitals during the study period and 3739 patients were enrolled. The overall incidence of AEs was 10.1% and ERCP-related mortality was 0.08%. PEP developed in 258 cases (6.9%), bleeding in 33 (0.9%), instrumental AEs in 17 (0.5%), infections in 37 (1.0%), cardiovascular AEs in eight (0.2%), pulmonary AEs in eight (0.2%), drug reaction AE in one (0.03%), pain in 15 (0.4%), and other AEs in 15 (0.4%). Multivariable analysis showed significant risk factors for PEP were: female of younger age, pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation, temporary guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, total procedure time >60 min, and post-ERCP administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Effective preventive measures were prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PPS) and epinephrine spraying onto the papilla.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with intact papilla who underwent biliary ERCP, the incidence of AEs was 10.1% and the mortality was 0.08%. PPS and epinephrine spraying may prevent PEP.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000024820).

Randomized trial of high-dose rectal diclofenac suppository and epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-dose rectal diclofenac suppository and epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. We performed randomized trial to compare the effect of combination of rectal diclofenac and epinephrine spray on papilla (group A) vs. combination of rectal diclofenac with saline spray (group B) for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at tertiary care center from April 2018 to May 2020 on 882 patients with naive papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were randomly assigned to groups, A (n=437) or B (n=445). All patients received a single dose of rectal diclofenac 100 mg within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of diluted epinephrine 0.02% (group A) or saline (group B) was then sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in two groups.

RESULTS

The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 28 patients in group A (6.4%) and 35 patients in group B (7.9%) (relative risk, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.39; p=0.401).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that addition of epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla did not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. There is need for further studies to evaluate the role of different concentrations of epinephrine spray on papilla for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI/2018/04/013396).

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

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

Can topical epinephrine application to the papilla prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Results from a double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial

Background and study aims

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP.

Patients and methods

This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine.

Results

Of the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009).

Conclusion

Spraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP.

Trial registration number

This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112).

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.

Efficacy of Epinephrine Injection in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rectal indomethacin or a topical spray of epinephrine to the papilla of Vater has each shown efficacy alone in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). We supposed that a submucosal epinephrine injection would be more effective and longer acting than a topical epinephrine spray and therefore would further reduce the incidence of PEP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 412 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) between January 2017 and December 2019. These patients were divided into 2 groups: the indomethacin group and the indomethacin plus the submucosal epinephrine injection group. The incidence rates and severity of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, other outcomes, and any other adverse events were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and procedure-related parameters were similar between the 2 groups. The incidence of PEP was 0.4% in the epinephrine group compared with 5.1% in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Post-ERCP hyperamylasemia occurred in 24.6% of patients in the indomethacin group, whereas 7.6% of patients in the epinephrine group developed this condition; the difference was significant (P<0.001). Postsphincterotomy bleeding occurred in 5 patients, all of whom were in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Other adverse events, including arrhythmias, acute coronary events, stroke, or hypertension were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Addition of a submucosal epinephrine injection in conjunction with rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and postsphincterotomy bleeding.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention using topical epinephrine: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Multiple drugs and techniques have been studied for the prevention of PEP. Topical epinephrine has shown mixed results and is still not widely accepted as an alternative for prevention of PEP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical epinephrine in preventing PEP. Methods  A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching Cochrane library database, Embase and PubMed up to August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for prevention of PEP. Outcomes included prevention of PEP with use of topical epinephrine and evaluation of whether addiing epinephrine provides any additional benefit in preventing PEP. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Results  Eight studies, including six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, RR = 0.63 (CI 0.32-1.24) with heterogeneity (I2 = 72 %). However, on a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine significantly decreases the risk of PEP when compared to placebo alone (means no intervention was done including no rectal indomethacin)., RR = 0.32 (0.18-0.57). In another subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in using topical epinephrine along with rectal indomethacin in preventing PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone RR = 0.87 (0.46-1.64). Conclusion  Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional benefit in preventing PEP when used in conjunction with rectal indomethacin. In subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine appeared to decrease risk of PEP in the absence of rectal indomethacin, and could be considered when rectal indomethacin is unavailable or if there is a contraindication to its use.

Three-hour post-ERCP amylase level: a useful indicator for early prediction of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Background

To evaluate the value of the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase level for early prediction of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

Method

A study of 206 patients performed ERCP (Encoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography) at a single centre was done from Jan. 2011 to Nov. 2016. The serum amylase or lipase level was measured at 3 h after ERCP. The patients with PEP were recorded. ROC curves were used to statistically analyze the data: The enrolled patients were divided into two groups according to gender, then we analyzed the data respectively. We comprehensively evaluated the predictive value of PEP by 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase level based on the results above.

Results

Two hundred six patients (92 males, 114 females) were enrolled. PEP occurred in 21 patients (10.19%) among them. The median time to discharge was 7 days (min = 1d, max = 13d) after the procedure. In the 206 patients, the 3-h post-ERCP pancreatic amylase level was used as the test variable, and the PEP occurrence as the state variable to plot the ROC curve. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.816, and was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The standard error (SE) was 0.0507, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was 0.756–0.866, and the optimal cut-off value was 351 U/L (sensitivity 76.19%, specificity 83.24%, positive likelihood ratio 4.55, negative likelihood ratio 0.29, Youden index 59.43%). Of the 206 patients, there were 83 patients with both 3-h post-ERCP amylase level and lipase level detected, and the ROC curves were plotted for both serum amylase and lipase respectively. The ROC curve matched-pair testing was carried out: The areas under the ROC curves were statistically significant. (P < 0.001) The area under the ROC curve for the 3-h post-ERCP lipase was 0.778, the 95% confidence interval was 0.673–0.862, and optimal cut-off value was 1834 U/L. The area under the ROC curve for the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase was 0.780, and the 95% confidence interval was 0.676–0.864. The optimal cut-off is 380 U/L, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two for diagnostic accuracy. According to gender, 206 patients were divided into 2 groups, and the ROC curves were drawn respectively. Based on statistical analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy of the two groups. In the male group, 436 U/L serum amylase provided the greatest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity (SE) of 70.5%, specificity (SP) of 89.2%, positive predictive value (PPV) 87.5%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 78.1%. Whereas, in the female group, 357 U/L serum amylase provided the greatest diagnostic accuracy with sensitivity of 76.9%, specificity of 81.2%, positive predictive value of 80.4%, negative predictive value of 77.9%.

Conclusions

1. The 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase level is a useful measurement for predicting post-ERCP pancreatitis. 2. There was no significant difference between serum amylase and lipase 3-h post-ERCP for predicting PEP. 3. There was no statistically significant difference between male and female using the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase level to predict PEP. For female, the optimal cut-off value was 357 U/L, whereas male 436 U/L .

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND

Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), since it has been considered to be the most common complication of ERCP. Although ERCP can lead various complications, it can also be avoided.

AIM

To study the published evidence and systematically review the literature on the prevention and treatment for PEP.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on the prevention of PEP was conducted using the electronic databases of ISI Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. The electronic search for the review was performed by using the search terms “Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis” AND “prevention” through different criteria. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed between January 2009 and February 2019. Duplicate studies were detected by using EndNote and deleted by the author. PRISMA checklist and flow diagram were adopted for evaluation and reporting. The reference lists of the selected papers were also scanned to find other relevant studies.

RESULTS

726 studies meeting the search criteria and 4 relevant articles found in the edited books about ERCP were identified. Duplicates and irrelevant studies were excluded by screening titles and abstracts and assessing full texts. 54 studies were evaluated for full text review. Prevention methods were categorized into three groups as (1) assessment of patient related factors; (2) pharmacoprevention; and (3) procedural techniques for prevention. Most of studies in the literature showed that young age, female gender, absence of chronic pancreatitis, suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, recurrent pancreatitis and history of previous PEP played a crucial role in posing high risks for PEP. 37 studies designed to assess the impact of 24 different pharmacologic agents to reduce the development of PEP delivered through various administration methods were reviewed. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to reduce risks for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin immediately prior to or after ERCP in all patients is recommended by European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to prevent the development of PEP. The majority of the studies reviewed revealed that rectally administered indomethacin had efficacy to prevent PEP. Results of the other studies on the other pharmacological interventions had both controversial and promising results. Thirteen studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 distinct procedural techniques to prevent the development of PEP were reviewed. Pancreatic Stent Placement has been frequently used in this sense and has potent and promising benefits in the prevention of PEP. Studies on the other procedural techniques have had inconsistent results.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of PEP involves multifactorial aspects, including assessment of patients with high risk factors for alternative therapeutic and diagnostic techniques, administration of pharmacological agents and procedural techniques with highly precise results in the literature.

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 of Topical Epinephrine and Rectal Indomethacin for Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION

Rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine have separately shown efficacy in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that the combination of indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine on the duodenal papillae would further reduce PEP than when indomethacin was used alone.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial of rectal indomethacin alone vs a combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP and the secondary outcome was the severity of PEP. A 2-tailed Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the difference in the proportion of patients with PEP in the indomethacin alone vs the combination group.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (mean age 52.33 ± 14.96 years; 551 [57.4%] females) were randomized and 959 completed follow-up. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Women <50 years of age (25.4%) and difficult cannulation (84.9%) were the most common PEP risk factors. The incidence of PEP was 6.4% in the indomethacin alone group (n = 482) compared to 6.7% in the combination group (n = 477; P = 0.87). Severe PEP was found in 5 (12%) and 7 (16%) patients in the indomethacin alone and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.88). The overall mortality was 0.6%, which was unrelated to the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine does not reduce the incidence of PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone in high-risk patients; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02116309.

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

Background

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Medications and Techniques

Over the past 2 decades, it increasingly has been recognized that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most predictable provocateur of acute pancreatitis, with an incidence of more than 15% in high-risk patients. For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the effect of periprocedural drug administration as well as different ERCP techniques on both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Although many agents and techniques have shown promise in small clinical studies, the majority of these have failed to yield consistent benefit in larger randomized patient groups. This review summarizes the data on medications and ERCP techniques that have been studied for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

A Randomized Comparative Study of 24- and 6-Hour Infusion of Nafamostat Mesilate for the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although prolonged intravenous infusion (24 hours) of nafamostat mesilate is effective for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it requires hospitalization and is expensive. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 24- versus 6-hour intravenous infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 382 patients who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned into 2 groups: 24 hours or 6 hours. In both groups, nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) infusion was initiated up to an hour before ERCP and continued for either 24 or 6 hours.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 2.4% (9/371). The rates of PEP following 24- and 6-hour infusion were 2.8% (5/179) and 2.1% (4/192), respectively (P = 0.744). No significant difference was observed in the severity of pancreatitis between the groups. On multivariate analysis, increasing pancreatic duct cannulations (odds ratio, 1.685; 95% confidence interval, 1.036-2.741; P = 0.036) was identified as a statistically significant risk factor of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the incidence of PEP regardless of the duration of nafamostat mesilate infusion. Therefore, 6-hour infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate may be useful for the prevention of PEP in an outpatient setting.

Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

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

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement

BACKGROUND

It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.

SETTING

University of Michigan and Indiana University.

PATIENTS

A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS, patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To define the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort.

RESULTS

The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, significantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured.

CONCLUSION

FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These findings highlight the importance of adequate training and proficiency before endoscopists attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP.

SETTING

Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis.

PATIENTS

Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for "ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and "post-ERCP pancreatitis". in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.

Prevention and treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely used in the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiopancreatic diseases, and pancreatitis remains the most common and severe complication. It is therefore important to minimize the incidence and severity of pancreatitis. This paper discusses the recent progress in the prevention and treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in a meta-analysis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of ERCP. Several meta-analyses have examined the effects of protease inhibitors (gabexate mesilate, ulinastatin, and nafamostat mesilate) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on post-ERCP pancreatitis, but the results have been confusing. Since the previous meta-analysis, several new studies have been published on this topic. To provide an updated quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials for patients at risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Twenty-six articles were included in this meta-analysis. Nafamostat mesilate (summary RR = 0.41; 95 %CI 0.28-0.59; n = 4 studies) and NSAIDs (summary RR = 0.58; 95 %CI = 0.44-0.76; n = 7 studies) were associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. However, gabexate mesilate (summary RR = 0.64; 95 %CI = 0.36-1.13; n = 6 studies) and ulinastatin (summary RR = 0.65; 95 %CI = 0.33-1.30; n = 2 studies) were not associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the high-quality studies. This is the first meta-analysis to compare the effects of three protease inhibitors. Solid evidence supports the use of nafamostat mesilate and NSAIDs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Small Endoscopic Sphincterotomy plus Large-Balloon Dilation for Removal of Large Common Bile Duct Stones during ERCP

Objective: This study compared the therapeutic benefits and complication rates of small endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation (ESLBD) with those of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) alone for large bile duct stones.

Methods: We compared prospectively ESLBD group (n=63) with conventional EST group (n=69) for the treatment of large bile duct stones (≥15mm). Mechanical lithotripsy was performed when the stone could not be removed using a normal basket. We compared the rates of stone removal, frequency of mechanical lithotripsy use, procedure-related complications, and recurrent stones.

Results: A total of 132 patients were reviewed in the study. The mean age of the patients was 67.9 years. The two groups showed significant differences in complete stone removal during the first session (80.9 vs. 60.8%; P = 0.046), the use of mechanical lithotripsy (7.94 vs. 24.6%; P = 0.041), and less duration of admission (P =0.045). After ERCP, there were some instances of oozing in both groups, All patients recovered completely, 14 patients had recurrent common bile duct stones among the follow-up duration.

Conclusion: The ESLBD technique seems to be a feasible and safe alternative technique for conventional EST and EBD and has no more Post-ERCP complications.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of many pharmacological agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but it is unclear which agent(s) should be used in clinical practice. Network meta-analyses of RCTs are used to simultaneously compare several agents to determine their relative efficacy and identify priority agents for comparison in future RCTs.

AIM

To evaluate pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP by conducting a network meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of agents for preventing PEP. RCTs were simultaneously analysed using random-effects network meta-analysis under the Bayesian framework to identify the best agents. The efficacy of agents was ordered according to the probability of being ranked as any of the top three best performing agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 99 RCTs evaluating 16 agents in 25 313 patients. Topical epinephrine (adrenaline) was the most efficacious agent with 85.9% probability of ranking among the top three agents, followed by nafamostat (51.4%), antibiotics (44.5%) and NSAIDs (42.8%). However, in a sensitivity analysis including only rectal NSAIDs, NSAIDs moved from fourth rank to second (58.1%). Patients receiving topical epinephrine, compared with placebo, had a 75% reduced risk of PEP (OR 0.25, 95% probability interval 0.06-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical epinephrine and rectal NSAIDs are the most efficacious agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on existing RCTs. Combinations of these agents, which act on different steps in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, should be evaluated in future trials.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A variety of patient-related and procedure-related factors have been identified to risk-stratify patients. Several measures can be undertaken in order to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk groups. These measures include pancreatic duct stenting and rectal indomethacin, amongst others.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis: review of current preventive strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent literature with significant findings pertaining to the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite several promising reports of pharmacologic agents that have demonstrated the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secretin, there are currently no universally accepted agents for use in high-risk patients. The greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demonstrated through advancements in endoscopic techniques such as pancreatic duct stenting and dye-free guidewire cannulation.

SUMMARY

Pancreatitis requiring hospitalization is the most common complication of ERCP. Numerous pharmaceutical and procedure related interventions have been studied in attempts to prevent this complication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant. The most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and identification of risk factors prior to procedure.