Indomethacin may reduce the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis after ERCP

A network meta-analysis of optimal strategies for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), but it remains uncertain which approach is the most effective. The objective of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare different preventive strategies for overall, mild, and moderate-to-severe PEP in both average- and high-risk patients. A systematic search was conducted for randomized controlled trials across the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central databases. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies that featured at least two of the following interventions: pre-procedural administration of 100 mg of rectal diclofenac (D) or indomethacin (I), aggressive hydration utilizing normal saline (NS) or lactated Ringer's solution (LR), 5-french pancreatic duct stent (S), and either a placebo or an active control (C). The interventions were ranked according to their surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. The study protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024538533). Of the total 42 (n = 11,493) identified studies, 23 studies (n = 5,410) were categorized into the average-risk group and 19 studies (n = 6,083) were categorized into high-risk group. Based on SUCRA, I + NS was ranked as the best preventive method for overall and mild PEP in average-risk group. However, I + LR was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. In high-risk group, I + S was the best preventive method of overall and mild PEP. However, D was the most effective method of prevention of moderate-to-severe PEP in this group. The findings of this network meta-analysis indicate that endoscopists should consider all available prophylactic options when performing ERCP, rather than favoring one over the others.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis 2023

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) 2023 provide updated recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of PEP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a valuable procedure for diagnosing and treating pancreatobiliary diseases, can result in PEP as the most common adverse event. Since the first guidelines were published in 2015, advances in techniques and new research findings have necessitated this revision. The guidelines developed using the GRADE methodology target adult patients undergoing ERCP. They offer a comprehensive framework for clinicians to minimize the risk of PEP. For high-risk patients, endoscopic ultrasound before ERCP is recommended to avoid unnecessary procedures. The guidelines also discuss procedural and patient-related risk factors for PEP, highlighting that operator experience does not significantly affect PEP rates if performed under the supervision of skilled endoscopists. The diagnostic criteria include monitoring serum pancreatic enzyme levels postprocedure, and early computed tomography is advised in suspected cases. For treatment, the guidelines recommend following acute pancreatitis protocols. Key preventive measures include the use of temporary pancreatic duct stents and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, both of which are supported by strong evidence for reducing the incidence of PEP. Overall, these guidelines aim to enhance clinical outcomes by reducing PEP incidence and improving its management through evidence-based practices.

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.

Intravenous Hemin, a potential heme oxygenase-1 activator, does not protect from post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in humans: Results of a randomized multicentric multinational placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Hemin, a heme oxygenase 1 activator has shown efficacy in the prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis in mouse models. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the protective effect of Hemin administration to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in patients at risk.

METHODS

In this multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT, we assigned patients at risk for PEP to receive a single intravenous dose of Hemin (4 mg/kg) or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were considered to be at risk on the basis of validated patient- and/or procedure-related risk factors. Neither rectal NSAIDs nor pancreatic stent insertion were allowed in randomized patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes included lipase elevation, mortality, safety, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 282 of the 294 randomized patients had complete follow-up. Groups were similar in terms of clinical, laboratory, and technical risk factors for PEP. PEP occurred in 16 of 142 patients (11.3%) in the Hemin group and in 20 of 140 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.48). Incidence of severe PEP reached 0.7% and 4.3% in the Hemin and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.07). Significant lipase elevation after ERCP did not differ between groups. Length of hospital stay, mortality and severe adverse events rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We failed to detect large improvements in PEP rate among participants at risk for PEP who received IV hemin immediately after the procedure compared to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01855841).

Effectiveness of the pharmacological therapy to prevent post ERCP acute pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of the different pharmacological agents in preventing post-ERCP acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We included clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. The event evaluated was acute pancreatitis. We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to nowadays. We reported the information in terms of relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval. We assessed the heterogeneity using the I2 test.

RESULTS

We included 84 studies for analysis (30,463 patients). The mean age was 59.3 years (SD ± 7.01). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I2 = 34.4%) with no inconsistencies (p = 0.2567). Post ERCP pancreatitis was less in prophylaxis with NSAIDs (RR 0.65 95% CI [0.52 to 0.80]), aggressive hydration with Lactate Ringer (RR 0.32 95% CI [0.12-0.86]), NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate (RR 0.28 95% CI [0.11-0.71]) and somatostatin and analogues (RR 0.54 [0.43 to 0.68]) compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs, the Combination of NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate, somatostatin and analogues, and aggressive hydration with lactate ringer are pharmacological strategies that can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis when compared to placebo. More clinical trials are required to determine the effectiveness of these drugs.

Design and Enantioselective Synthesis of Chiral Pyranone Fused Indole Derivatives with Antibacterial Activities against Xanthomonas oryzae pv oryzae for Protection of Rice

A new class of chiral pyranone fused indole derivatives were prepared by means of N-heterocyclic carbene (NHC) organocatalysis and demonstrated notable antibacterial activity against Xanthomonas oryzae pv oryzae (Xoo). Bioassays showed that compounds (3S,4R)-5b, (3S,4R)-5d, and (3S,4R)-5l exhibited promising in vitro efficacy against Xoo, with EC50 values of 9.05, 9.71, and 5.84 mg/L, respectively, which were superior to that of the positive controls with commercial antibacterial agents, bismerthiazol (BT, EC50 = 27.8 mg/L) and thiodiazole copper (TC, EC50 = 70.1 mg/L). Furthermore, single enantiomer (3S,4R)-5l was identified as an optimal structure displaying 55.3% and 52.0% curative and protective activities against Xoo in vivo tests at a concentration of 200 mg/L, which slightly surpassed the positive control with TC (curative and protective activities of 47.2% and 48.8%, respectively). Mechanistic studies through molecular docking analysis revealed preliminary insights into the distinct anti-Xoo activity of the two single enantiomers (3S,4R)-5l and (3R,4S)-5l, wherein the (3S,4R)-configured stereoisomer could form a more stable interaction with XooDHPS (dihydropteroate synthase). These findings underscore the significant anti-Xoo potential of these chiral pyranone fused indole derivatives, and shall inspire further exploration as promising lead structures for a novel class of bactericides to combat bacterial infections and other plant diseases.

NSAIDs do not reduce severity among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients

OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.

DESIGN

A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.

RESULTS

7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop 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.

Controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis: An update

This review summarized the current controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The controversies in management range from issues involving fluid resuscitation, nutrition, the role of antibiotics and antifungals, which analgesic to use, role of anticoagulation and intervention for complications in AP. The interventions vary from percutaneous drainage, endoscopy or surgery. Active research and emerging data are helping to formulate better guidelines. The available evidence favors crystalloids, although the choice and type of fluid resuscitation is an area of dynamic research. The nutrition aspect does not have controversy as of now as early enteral feeding is preferred most often than not. The empirical use of antibiotics and antifungals are gray zones, and more data is needed for conclusive guidelines. The choice of analgesic is being studied, and the recommendations are still evolving. The position of using anticoagulation is still awaiting consensus. The role of intervention is well established, although the modality is constantly changing and favoring endoscopy or percutaneous drainage rather than surgery. It is evident that more multicenter randomized controlled trials are required for establishing the standard of care in these crucial management issues of AP to improve the morbidity and mortality worldwide.

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.

An Insight on Pharmacological and Mechanical Preventive Measures of Post-ERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP)—A Review

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). With the progress of research in many drugs and technologies, promising efficacy has been achieved in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Recently, combined prevention has received more attention in order to further reduce the incidence of PEP. However, there is no review about the combined prevention of PEP. This review summarizes the medication and ERCP techniques that are used to prevent PEP and emphasizes that appropriate combination prevention approaches should be based on risk stratification.

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.

JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy-to-understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In preparing the Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2021, the committee focused the issues raised by the results of nationwide epidemiological survey in 2016 in Japan.

METHOD

In addition to a systematic search using the previous JPN guidelines, papers published from January 2014 to September 2019 were searched for the contents to be covered by the guidelines based on the concept of GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinical questions (CQ) were prepared in 15 subject areas. Based on the facts that patients diagnosed with severe disease by both Japanese prognostic factor score and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) grade had a high fatality rate and that little prognosis improvement after 2 weeks of disease onset was not obtained, we emphasized the importance of Pancreatitis Bundles, which were shown to be effective in improving prognosis, and the CQ sections for local pancreatic complications had been expanded to ensure adoption of a step-up approach. Furthermore, on the facts that enteral nutrition for severe acute pancreatitis was not started early within 48 h of admission and that unnecessary prophylactic antibiotics was used in almost all cases, we emphasized early enteral nutrition in small amounts even if gastric feeding is used and no prophylactic antibiotics are administered in mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

All the members of the committee have put a lot of effort into preparing the extensively revised guidelines in the hope that more people will have a common understanding and that better medical care will be spread.

The Pancreas and Known Factors of Acute Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is regarded by clinicians as one of the most complicated and clinically challenging of all disorders affecting the abdomen. It is classified on the basis of clinical, morphological, and histological criteria. Causes of acute pancreatitis can easily be identified in 75–85% of patients. The main causes of acute, recurrent acute, and chronic pancreatitis are gallstone migration and alcohol abuse. Other causes are uncommon, controversial, or unexplained. For instance, cofactors of all forms of pancreatitis are pancreas divisum and hypertriglyceridemia. Another factor that should be considered is a complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study is to present the known risk factors for acute pancreatitis, beginning with an account of the morphology, physiology, and development of the pancreas.

Efficacy of Combined Management with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone or in combination with other agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopanography.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search of random controlled trials (RCTs) on preventing post-operative pancreatitis by administration of the anti-inflammatory drugs, indomethacin and diclofenac, following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The databases searched for relevant publications up to July 7, 2021, included PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. We screened the literature according to inclusion criteria and analyzed the extracted data. The overall population and high-risk patient groups were analyzed, with the main outcome being the incidence of PEP.

RESULTS

The search identified 32 RCTs that included 15019 patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis and 9 different interventions. The results of the overall population network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. However, compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference between the two interventions (NSAIDs + standard hydration and high-dose NSAIDs). In addition, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates were associated with a lower incidence of PEP compared to that observed with NSAIDs alone. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + sublingual nitrate had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + standard hydration, NSAIDs + melatonin, NSAIDs + aggressive hydration, NSAIDs + somatostatin, NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs + epinephrine, high-dose NSAIDs, and placebo. In the high-risk subgroup, the results of the network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs showed no statistically significant difference in their ability to reduce the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + hydration had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + sublingual nitroglycerin and NSAIDs + aggressive hydration.

CONCLUSION

Of the nine interventions, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates had considerably better efficacy than the other drugs for reducing the incidence of PEP in the overall population. In high-risk patients, NSAIDs + standard hydration may be the best preventive treatment; however, more randomized, controlled trials are needed to validate our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews. Unique identifying number or registration ID: CRD42021282205.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Efficacy of Combining Aggressive Hydration With Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are equally efficient in preventing pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in average-risk patients

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are promising drugs for prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, their prophylactic effect on PEP in average‐risk patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal indomethacin and diclofenac in average‐risk patients, and to indirectly compare the prophylactic effect of the two drugs. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on rectal indomethacin or diclofenac for prophylaxis against PEP. Fixed‐ and random‐effects models weighted by the Mantel–Haenszel method were used for direct comparisons. The adjusted indirect treatment comparison method was used to indirectly compare the efficacy of indomethacin and diclofenac. A total of 10 RCTs, including 2928 patients, met our inclusion criteria. No significant publication bias was identified. Pooled estimates showed that rectal indomethacin and diclofenac were associated with a significant reduction in the overall risk of PEP compared with control intervention [relative risk (RR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–0.83] in average‐risk patients. Subgroup analyses showed that both rectal indomethacin (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49–0.94) and diclofenac (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.23–0.75) were effective in the prevention of PEP. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs in the prevention of PEP (RR = 1.607; 95% CI: 0.824–3.136). The updated meta‐analysis suggests that both drugs provide equivalent protection against PEP in average‐risk patients.

Comparison of stent and indomethacin suppository efficacy in the prevention of acute pancreatitis after ERCP

Objective:

We aimed to compare stent and indomethacin suppository efficacy in the prevention of acute pancreatitis after ERCP.

Materials and Methods:

76 high-risk patients undergoing ERCP were included in the study. The patients were divided into three groups as indomethacin group, stent group and control group. Indomethacin group (n = 32) received 100 mg rectal indomethacin immediately after ERCP. A 5F pancreatic stent was applied to the stent group (n = 16) during ERCP. No prophylaxis was given to the control group (n = 28).

Results:

There was no difference between the groups in terms of age and gender. ERCP pancreatitis was seen in 9.2% (7/76) of the patients. The incidence of ERCP-induced pancreatitis (PEP) was 3.1% (1/32) in the indomethacin group and 21.4% (6/28) in the control group. PEP was not seen in the stent group (0/16). The incidence of PEP was significantly lower in the indomethacin group than in the control group (p = 0.043). However, no significant difference was found between the stent and control groups, stent and indomethacin groups in terms of PEP frequency (p = 0.072, p: 0.90 respectively).

Conclusion:

According to the results of our study, rectal indomethacin administration decreased the frequency of PEP in high-risk patients. However, there was no significant difference in PEP prophylaxis between the stent and indomethacin groups.

Outcomes and risk factors for ERCP-related complications in a predominantly black urban population

Objective

There is a lack of literature on postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications in predominantly black urban populations of low socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and predictors of post-ERCP complications in this patient population.

Design

Retrospective review of ERCP cases performed at two hospitals from 2007 to 2017 was performed. The categories of complications evaluated were overall complications, severe or fatal complications, pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, perforation and cardiopulmonary events. Predictors of complications were determined by univariate analysis.

Results

A total of 1079 ERCP procedures were reviewed. There were 106 complications (9.8%). Twenty-one were severe (1.9%) and 20 were fatal (1.9%). Both post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and post-ERCP bleeding occurred in 18 patients (1.7%) each. Risk factors for overall complications were male sex (OR 1.54), ASA grade IV or V (OR 2.19), prior history of PEP (OR 6.98) and pancreatic duct stent placement (OR 2.75). Those who were ASA grade III or lower (OR 0.4) or who underwent biliary stone extraction (OR 0.62) had fewer complications. PEP was more likely in those with a prior history of PEP (OR 37.6). Those with a suspected or known biliary duct stone had less frequent pancreatitis (OR 0.32). Post-ERCP bleeding was more likely in the presence of cholangitis (OR 8.72).

Conclusion

Outcomes of ERCP in a predominantly black urban population demonstrate a lower incidence of PEP and all-cause mortality compared with historical data reported in the general population. Potential risk factors for post-ERCP complications were identified but require larger studies for validation.

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.

Network meta-analysis of prophylactic pancreatic stents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of moderate-to-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

Seven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002-0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051-0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22-1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18-2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug effectivity in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary therapeutic procedure for the treatment of diseases affecting the biliary tree and pancreatic duct. Although the therapeutic success rate of ERCP is high, the procedure can cause complications, such as acute pancreatitis [post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP)], bleeding and perforation.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing PEP during follow-up.

METHODS

Databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Library were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of NSAIDs and placebo for the prevention of PEP were included. Outcomes evaluated included the incidence of PEP, severity of pancreatitis, route of administration, types, dose, and timing of administration of NSAIDs.

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were considered eligible with a total of 8143 patients analyzed. Overall, 4020 patients used NSAIDs before ERCP and 4123 did not use NSAIDs (control group). Ultimately, 298 cases of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis were diagnosed in the NSAID group and 484 cases in the placebo group. The risk of PEP was lower in the NSAID group risk difference (RD): -0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.07 to - 0.03; number needed to treat (NNT), 25; P < 0.05. NSAID use effectively prevented mild pancreatitis compared to placebo use (2.5% vs 4.1%; 95%CI: -0.05 to -0.01; NNT, 33; P < 0.05), but information on moderate PEP and severe PEP could not be fully elucidated. Only rectal administration reduced the incidence of PEP with RD: -0.06; 95%CI: -0.08 to -0.04; NNT, 17; P < 0.05). Furthermore, only the use of diclofenac or indomethacin was effective in preventing PEP, at a dose of 100 mg, which must be administered before performing ERCP.

CONCLUSION

Rectal administration of diclofenac and indomethacin significantly reduced the risk of developing mild PEP. Additional RCTs are needed to compare the efficacy between NSAID routes of administration in preventing PEP.

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.

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.

Low-dose rectal diclofenac does not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in low- or high-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The most common adverse event following an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration has shown promise to reduce the risk of PEP in high-risk patients. However, in contrast to high-risk patients, the role of NSAID administration in patients with low risk remains controversial.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, single-blinded, two-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial to clarify the efficacy of low dose (50 mg) rectal NSAID administration for preventing PEP in at-risk patients. Patients scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomized into two groups, those with and without rectal administration of diclofenac. Patients in the diclofenac group received 50 mg of rectal diclofenac 30 min before undergoing ERCP. The primary endpoint was rate of PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 303 were randomized into the study groups. Four patients declined participation following randomization, and another two were withdrawn. As a result, a total of 147 patients were assigned to the diclofenac group and 150 to the control group. The baseline and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. The primary endpoint of PEP occurrence was seen in 13 of 297 patients (4.4%), including eight (5.4%) in the diclofenac group and five (3.3%) in the control group (P = 0.286). Additionally, those results were not significantly different when patients were classified as low or high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic low-dose rectal diclofenac did not reduce the incidence of PEP following ERCP in patients classified as low or high risk.

Ever-increasing diversity of drug-induced pancreatitis

With over 100000 hospital admissions per annum, acute pancreatitis remains the leading gastrointestinal cause of hospitalization in the United States and has far-reaching impact well beyond. It has become increasingly recognized that drug-induced pancreatitis (DIP), despite accounting for less than 3% of all cases, represents an important and growing though often inconspicuous cause of acute pancreatitis. Nevertheless, knowledge of DIP is often curtailed by the limited availability of evidence needed to implicate given agents, especially for non-prescription medications. Indeed, the majority of available data is derived from case reports, case series, or case control studies. Furthermore, the mechanism of injury and causality for many of these drugs remain elusive as a definitive correlation is generally not established (< 10% of cases). Several classification systems have been proposed, but no single system has been widely adopted, and periodic updates are required in light of ongoing pharmacologic expansion. Moreover, infrequently prescribed medications or those available over-the-counter (including herbal and other alternative remedies) are often overlooked as a potential culprit of acute pancreatitis. Herein, we review the ever-increasing diversity of DIP and the potential mechanisms of injury with the goal of raising awareness regarding the nature and magnitude of this entity. We believe this manuscript will aid in increasing both primary and secondary prevention of DIP, thus ultimately facilitating more expedient diagnosis and a decrease in DIP-related morbidity.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While several interventions may decrease risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it remains unclear whether one strategy is superior to others. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis among high-risk patients. Methods  A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database through May 2017. Interventions included: rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aggressive hydration with lactated ringer's (LR) solution, and pancreatic stent placement compared to placebo. Only studies with patients at high-risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of treatments was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Results  We identified 29 trials, comprising 7,862 participants comparing four preventive strategies. On network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, rectal NSAIDs (B = - 0.69, 95 % CI [-1.18; - 0.21]), pancreatic stent (B = - 1.25, 95 % CI [-1.81 to -0.69]), LR (B = - 0.67, 95 % CI [-1.20 to -0.13]), and combination of LR plus rectal NSAIDs (B = - 1.58; 95 % CI [-3.0 to -0.17]), were all associated with a reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreatic stent placement had the highest SUCRA probability (0.81, 95 % CI [0.83 to 0.80]) of being ranked the best prophylactic treatment. Conclusions  Based on this network meta-analysis, pancreatic stent placement appears to be the most effective preventive strategy for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation with minor sphincterotomy for periampullary diverticular papilla

Background To observe the outcome of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) with minor sphincterotomy (mEST) for periampullary diverticular papilla related to stone removal. Methods Patients with confirmed periampullary diverticulum (PAD) during stone removal from May 2016 to April 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The Chi-square test with Yates correction or Fisher's exact test was used for the analysis of categorical data and a normality test was applied for continuous data. Results A total of 154 consecutive patients (89 males and 65 females, aged 51-87 years) with confirmed PAD during stone removal were included in the study. Cases were divided into the conventional EST group (n = 79) and the mEST plus EPLBD group (n = 75). The number of patients with an initial treatment success was greater in the EPLBD+mEST group compared with the EST group (96% vs 86.1%, p=0.03) and the procedure time for EPLBD+mEST was shorter than that for EST alone (46.1±13.7 min vs 53.3±11.6 min, p=0.01). The rate of complications in the EPLBD+mEST group was lower than in the EST group (17.3% vs 32.9%, p=0.04). When PAD was >15 mm, the initial success rate was higher (92.6% vs 73.9%, p=0.04) and the rate of overall complications was lower (14.8% vs 41.7%, p=0.03) in the EPLBD+mEST group than those in the EST group. Although, this was similar when PAD was <15 mm. Conclusion EPLBD+mEST might be safer and more effective than conventional EST alone for stone removal in the presence of PAD.

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

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Risk Factors for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in the Indomethacin Era - A Prospective Study

Background and Aims

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure used to treat conditions affecting the biliopancreatic system, it can lead to several complications. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent one, with an incidence ranging from 3 to 14%. Our aim was to assess the potential risk factors associated with PEP occurrence in patients undergoing ERCP with indomethacin prophylaxis.

Methods

Prospective, single-center, real-world observational study (January to December 2015) with inclusion of patients submitted to ERCP, where relevant patient-related and procedure-related data had been collected. Patients had to have been admitted for a minimum of 24 h in order to establish the presence of early complications. All patients were submitted to PEP prophylaxis with 1 or 2 methods: rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct (PD) stenting.

Results

A total of 188 patients who had undergone ERCP were included (52.7% women; mean age 69.2 ± 16.0 years) and PEP was diagnosed in 13 (6.9%). PEP prophylaxis consisted of indomethacin in all cases (100%) and PD stenting in 7.4%. The pancreatitis was mild in 11 patients (84.6%) and severe in the other 2. One of them died (0.5%). None of the patient-related risk factors were associated with changes in PEP probability. Of all patients, 33.0% had 2 or more procedure-related risk factors. A higher number of synchronous procedure-related risk factors showed a statistically significant correlation with PEP occurrence, p = 0.040.

Conclusions

The 6.9% PEP rate is considered acceptable since 33.0% patients had a medium-high risk for PEP due to challenging biliary cannulation. The total number of procedure-related risk factors seems to play a critical role in the development of PEP despite indomethacin prophylaxis.

Combination of Diclofenac and Sublingual Nitrates Is Superior to Diclofenac Alone in Preventing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a major adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreases the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Little is known about the combined effects of sublingual nitrate and NSAIDs. We performed a randomized trial to assess whether the combination of NSAIDs and sublingual nitrate is more effective than NSAIDs alone in preventing PEP.

METHODS

In a prospective superiority trial, eligible patients underwent ERCP at 12 endoscopic units in Japan, from March 2015 through May 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given diclofenac suppositories (50 mg) within 15 minutes after the endoscopic procedure alone (diclofenac-alone group, n = 442) or in combination with sublingual isosorbide dinitrate (5 mg) 5 minutes before the endoscopic procedure (combination group, n = 444). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of PEP.

RESULTS

PEP developed in 25 patients in the combination group (5.6%), and in 42 patients in the diclofenac-alone group (9.5%) (relative risk 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.95; P = .03). Moderate to severe pancreatitis developed in 4 patients (0.9%) in the combination group, and 10 patients (2.3%) in the diclofenac-alone group (relative risk 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.26; P = .12). There was no serious adverse event related to the additional administration of sublingual nitrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that prophylaxis with rectal diclofenac and sublingual nitrate significantly reduces the overall incidence of PEP compared with diclofenac suppository alone. ClinicalTrials.gov, no: UMIN 000016274.

Split-dose or hybrid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and N-acetylcysteine therapy for prevention of post-retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Despite significant technical and training improvements, the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has not significantly dropped. Although many studies have evaluated the efficacy of various agents, e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, octreotide, antioxidants, administered via various dosages, routes (oral, intrarectal or parenteral), and schedules (before or after the procedure), the results have been conflicting.

AIM

To evaluate efficacy of three pharmacologic prophylactic methods for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center randomized trial, patients who underwent first-time ERCP for choledocholithiasis were randomly assigned to three groups. The first group received 600 mg N-acetylcysteine 15 min prior to ERCP, and per-rectum administration of 50 mg indomethacin both prior to and after completion of the ERCP. The second group was administered only the 50 mg indomethacin per-rectum both prior to and after the ERCP. The third group was administered per-rectum 100 mg indomethacin only after the ERCP, representing the control group given the guideline-recommended regimen. The primary end-point was PEP prevention.

RESULTS

Among the total 211 patients evaluated during the study, 186 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the protocol. The percentages of patients who developed PEP in each of the three groups were not significantly different (χ² = 2.793, P = 0.247). Among the acute PEP cases, for all groups, 14 patients developed mild pancreatitis (77.77%) and 4 moderate. No severe cases of PEP occurred, and in all PEP cases the resolution was favorable. No adverse events related to the medications (digestive hemorrhage, rectal irritation, or allergies) occurred.

CONCLUSION

The efficacies of split-dose indomethacin and combined administration (N-acetylcysteine with indomethacin) for preventing PEP were similar to that of the standard regimen.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Rectal Indomethacin Is Protective against Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim

Rectal indomethacin was reported to be effective for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis. However, the preventive effect of indomethacin for average-risk patients remains unclear. Recently, some conflicting evidence was addressed by recent articles. We aimed to determine the protective role of indomethacin in PEP based on the latest available literature.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify related articles published before October 2016. Studies that evaluated the administration of indomethacin in the prevention of PEP were included in the analysis. We adopted a random-effects model to calculate the overall relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ten trials from an initial search were finally included in the meta-analysis. The administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP in consecutive ERCP population (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.77). There was no significant heterogeneity across included studies (I² = 14.2%, P = 0.31). Further subgroup analyses also revealed that rectal indomethacin could protect the individuals at high and average risks and reduced severity of PEP. Pre-ERCP administration of indomethacin seemed to be better than the post-ERCP given. There was no evidence of significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Rectal administration of indomethacin is an effective approach to prevent the incidence of PEP in both high- and average-risk populations undergoing ERCP. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to further investigate the optimal timing for the administration of indomethacin.

Rectal Indomethacin Prevents Moderate to Severe Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Death and Should Be Used Before the Procedure: A Meta-Analysis of Aggregate Subgroup Data

Background

Despite overall evidence in the literature favoring rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), its role in preventing potentially fatal complications is not well explored.

Method

A comprehensive electronic literature search was done to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rectal indomethacin and placebo in preventing PEP. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Statistical heterogeneity was characterized. Random effect model meta-analysis was used. Several subgroup, sensitivity and aggregate subgroup data analyses were completed based on specific risk factors or patient characteristics to identify patient populations who may benefit most from rectal indomethacin.

Results

A total of eight out of 336 trials published between 2007 and 2016 (n=3324) were included. Analysis showed administering rectal indomethacin before rather than during or after ERCP significantly reduced PEP rates (odds ratio (OR): 0.56 [0.40-079]). Rectal indomethacin also significantly decreased the rate of moderate to severe PEP and death amongst all patients (OR: 0.53 [0.31-0.89] and 0.10 [0.02-0.65], respectively). Rectal indomethacin significantly prevented PEP in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (OR: 0.49 [0.30-0.78]) and those undergoing biliary sphincterotomy (OR: 0.63 [0.42-0.95]), but not in those undergoing precut or pancreatic sphincterotomy or prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Sensitivity analysis showed that the effect remained significant after two studies with high risk of bias were excluded.

Conclusion

Rectal indomethacin significantly decreases the occurrence of moderate to severe PEP and death in all patients, only if given before the procedure.

Pre-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have reported that peri-procedural administration of rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Based on these studies, gastrointestinal (GI) societies recommend prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP. However, recent studies have reported contradictory results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in unselected patients who received rectal indomethacin before the ERCP (pre-ERCP) compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through September 1, 2017) to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the role of pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin in reducing the risk of PEP in unselected patients undergoing ERCP. The databases included Ovid, Medline, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science. We calculated a pooled estimate of the RR of PEP in patients who received pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 2229 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 1143 patients in the rectal indomethacin group and 1086 patients in the rectal placebo group. There were 71 events of PEP in the rectal indomethacin group and 114 events of PEP in the rectal placebo group. Pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the risk of PEP compared to pre-ERCP rectal placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; p<0.0001). There was no heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 0).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis support the routine pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to prevent PEP.

The effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on severity of acute pancreatitis and pancreatic necrosis

Introduction Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common emergency presentation and can be disabling. There is significant morbidity and mortality associated with AP, and it places a considerable burden on the healthcare system. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to have a protective effect in some elective contexts. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect of NSAIDs on the course of AP and the severity of the disease. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out of 324 patients admitted as an emergency with a diagnosis of AP to two UK hospitals. Patients were divided into two groups: those already taking NSAIDs for other co-morbidities and those not taking NSAIDs. Variables compared included: admission to a high dependency or intensive care unit; pancreatic necrosis; pseudocyst development; need for surgery; serum inflammatory markers; modified early warning scores on days 1, 3 and 5; length of stay; and mortality. Results Patients not taking NSAIDs were more likely to have a C-reactive protein level of ≥150mg/l (p=0.007). Patients in the NSAID group experienced less pancreatic necrosis (p=0.019) and lower rates of pseudocyst formation (p=0.010). Other variables showed no difference between the two groups, specifically length of stay and mortality. Conclusions Routine NSAID use may exert a protective effect on the development of AP, its severity, and complications. Therapeutic use of NSAIDs in acute presentations with pancreatitis should be further evaluated.

Use of NSAIDs via the Rectal Route for the Prevention of Pancreatitis after ERCP in All-Risk Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We searched database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing periprocedural rectal administration of NSAIDs with placebo for the prevention of PEP. The rectal administration of NSAIDs significantly decreased the incidence of PEP in the whole patient population (odds ratio (OR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.64, P < 0.0001), high-risk patients (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19–0.58, P = 0.0001), and all-risk patients (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31–0.84, P = 0.008). The incidence of PEP was reduced by indomethacin (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.82, P = 0.004) and diclofenac (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15–0.46, P < 0.00001). The administration of NSAIDs before (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.73, P = 0.002) or after (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27–0.56, P < 0.00001) ERCP reduced PEP. The NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in mild PEP (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36–0.83, P = 0.004) and moderate-to-severe PEP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.79, P = 0.004). The rectal administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk and all-risk patients.

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.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs administration is effective for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Whether the prophylactic administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) peri-ERCP is effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of rectal NSAIDs on PEP.

METHODS

A systematic search of literature databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Jadad score for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. The primary endpoint of the study was efficacy for PEP prevention. Sub-analyses were performed to determine the risk reduction for different NSAID types, for general vs. high-risk patients, by timing of administration and for moderate to severe PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs, including a total of 3989 patients, were identified and included in the analysis. The risk of PEP was lower in the NSAIDs group than in the placebo group (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.43-0.64; P < 0.01). The risk of moderate to severe PEP was also lower in the NSAIDs group. (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.69; P < 0.01). There was no difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac, nor between pre-ERCP and post-ERCP administration timing of rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

A single rectal dose of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP both in high-risk and in unselected patients, regardless of timing of administration (pre- or post-ERCP) and NSAID type (indomethacin or diclofenac).

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.