Combination prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients undergoing double-guidewire assisted biliary cannulation: A case-control study with propensity score matching

Rectal diclofenac versus indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (DIPPP): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Recent meta-analyses suggested diclofenac may be superior to indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy of 100 mg rectal indomethacin versus diclofenac on PEP incidences.

DESIGN

This multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine tertiary centres in China. Patients with low and high risk for PEP and native papilla were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive 100 mg diclofenac or 100 mg indomethacin rectally before ERCP. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PEP defined by the Cotton consensus. The intention-to-treat principle was conducted for the analysis.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated early for futility after the predetermined first interim analysis. Between June 2023 and May 2024, 1204 patients were randomised into the diclofenac group (n=600) or indomethacin group (n=604). Baseline characteristics were balanced. The primary outcome occurred in 53 patients (8.8%) of 600 patients allocated to the diclofenac group and 37 patients (6.1%) of 604 patients allocated to the indomethacin group (relative risk 1.44; 95% CI 0.96 to 2.16, p=0.074). PEP occurred in 35 (14.2%) of 247 high-risk patients in the diclofenac group and 26 (9.8%) of 266 high-risk patients in the indomethacin group (p=0.124). PEP incidences were also comparable in low-risk patients between the two groups (18/353 (5.1%) vs 11/338 (3.3%), p=0.227). Other ERCP-related complications did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Pre-procedure 100 mg rectal diclofenac was not superior to the same dose of rectal indomethacin regarding preventing PEP. These findings supported current clinical practice guidelines of 100 mg indomethacin or diclofenac for PEP prophylaxis in patients without contraindications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05947461).

Systematic review and meta-analysis: no evidence that low-dose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)

BACKGROUND

Currently, many studies focus on the use of high-dose NSAIDs, showing significant effectiveness in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis after surgery. However, some studies suggest that low-dose NSAIDs can also have certain effects. Nevertheless, after using propensity score matching to balance potential biases, the results do not seem ideal and fail to demonstrate clear effectiveness.

AIM

This study investigates the effectiveness of NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis through a systematic review and meta-analysis of relevant literature.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, covering literature up to September 2024. The search utilized keywords such as "ERCP," "NSAIDs," and "propensity score matching." A total of three studies employing propensity score matching were included, encompassing 857 patients-417 receiving NSAIDs before ERCP and 440 in the control group. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3, applying a random-effects model for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in treatment outcomes between the NSAID and control groups, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.45-1.49, P = 0.74) and no observed heterogeneity (I²=0%). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results, indicating minimal impact from the removal of any single study.

DISCUSSION

These findings challenge previous assertions that NSAIDs effectively reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence. The lack of consistent evidence raises concerns about the reliability of existing research. Additionally, the lower NSAID doses used in studies may contribute to the observed ineffectiveness. Future large-scale, well-designed clinical trials are essential to establish clear treatment guidelines and enhance patient outcomes.

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.

Development and external validation of a nomogram for prediction of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely performed for management of pancreatobiliary diseases; however, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains as an unsolved problem. Although various risk factors for PEP have been reported, the prediction of PEP remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a predictive model for PEP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP for biliary indications at two centers were retrospectively studied. Using data from a training cohort, we utilized a multivariable model to select five variables to construct a nomogram. The predictive model was internally and externally validated. Based on the nomogram, the patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Using the data of 2224 patients in the training cohort, five variables were selected to generate a nomogram: 1) sex, 2) indication for ERCP, 3) difficult cannulation, 4) guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, and 5) endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The most significant risk factor was endoscopic papillary balloon dilation such as endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The bias-corrected concordance index was 0.72 in the training cohort and 0.72 in the validation cohort. Calibration curves for both cohorts demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and observed frequencies of the actual outcome. In the validation cohort, PEP developed in 5.0% and 14% of patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed a good predictive model for PEP. The prevention of PEP in high risk patients should be investigated further.

Current approaches and questions yet to be resolved for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Prophylaxis is important for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), which is the most common and serious complication of ERCP. Although the current guidelines include independent patient- and procedure-related risk factors for PEP and available PEP prophylactic measures, the synergistic effect of these risk factors on PEP should also be considered, given that patients often harbor multiple risk factors. Furthermore, a combination of prophylactic measures is often selected in clinical practice. However, established methods estimating the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP incidence are lacking, and evidence on the impact of combining prophylactic measures on PEP should be discussed. Selection of appropriate candidate patients for ERCP is also important to reduce the incidence of PEP associated with unnecessary ERCP. ERCP indications in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones (CBDSs) and in those with suspected CBDSs with no imaging-based evidence of stones are controversial. Further studies are warranted to predict the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP, determine the best prophylactic PEP measures, and identify appropriate candidates for ERCP in patients with asymptomatic CBDSs and those with suspected CBDSs.

Usefulness of the double-guidewire technique for endoscopic procedures in the field of biliary and pancreatic diseases

The double-guidewire method has been increasingly used in endoscopic procedures for biliary and pancreatic diseases in recent years, including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography-related procedures. In addition, double-lumen catheters with uneven distal and proximal lumen openings have been introduced, making it possible to easily create a double-guidewire situation, and the usefulness of the double-guidewire technique using uneven double-lumen cannulas has been widely reported. Although the advantages of using two guidewires depend on the particular situation and the appropriate use of the two guidewires, deepening the knowledge of the double-guidewire method will contribute greatly to troubleshooting in daily practice. In this review, the usefulness of the double-guidewire technique is discussed with respect to two main areas: selective insertion of guidewires and devices and biliary cannulation.

Difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP procedures with or without trainee involvement: a comparative study

BACKGROUND

The 5-5-1 criteria (> 5 minutes - 5 cannulation attempts - 1 unintended pancreas duct cannulation) were proposed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to define difficult biliary cannulation. However, the criteria may be inappropriate for trainee-involved procedures. We developed criteria for difficult cannulation in trainee-involved procedures.

METHODS

Patients undergoing biliary cannulation with or without trainee involvement were eligible. Procedures that might be too easy (e. g. fistula) or too difficult (e. g. altered anatomy) were excluded. The primary outcome was difficult cannulation, defined as cannulation time, attempts, or inadvertent pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation exceeding the 75 % percentile of each variable. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 1596 patients in each group. Trainee-involved procedures had longer median (interquartile range [IQR]) cannulation time (7.5 [2.2-15.3] vs. 2.0 [0.6-5.2] minutes), and more attempts (5 [2-10] vs. 2 [1-4]) and inadvertent PD cannulation (0 [0-2] vs. 0 [0-1]) vs. procedures without trainee involvement (all P < 0.001). The 15-10-2 criteria for difficult cannulation were proposed for trainee-involved cannulation and the 5-5-1 criteria were nearly confirmed for cannulation without trainee involvement. The proportions of difficult cannulation using these respective criteria were 35.5 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 33.2 %-37.9 %) and 31.8 % (95 %CI 29.5 %-34.2 %), respectively (odds ratio 1.18 [95 %CI 1.02-1.37]). Incidences of post-ERCP pancreatitis following difficult cannulation were comparable (7.8 % [95 %CI 5.7 %-10.3 %] vs. 9.8 % [95 %CI 7.4 %-12.8 %], respectively).

CONCLUSION

By using the 75 % percentiles as cutoffs, the proposed 15-10-2 criteria for difficult cannulation could be appropriate in trainee-involved procedures.