Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a controlled clinical trial

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.

Procalcitonin as a Predictor of Mortality in Patients With Severe Acute Pancreatitis

Background

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a severe inflammatory disorder that begins with the inappropriate activation of pancreatic enzymes within acinar cells due to biliary reflux, alcohol abuse, gallstones, and autoimmune disease. Several biomarkers have been studied that may aid in the early detection of pancreatic necrosis. The aim of this project was to evaluate the usefulness of procalcitonin (PCT) in predicting mortality in patients with severe AP in Mexican population.

Methods

An observational study, including 59 patients diagnosed with AP from 2018 to 2023, was conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Serum PCT levels were assessed on the first and third days of hospitalization (24 and 72 h).

Results

A total of 59 patients were included, and the main etiologies were lithiasis (28 patients, 47.5%) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (nine patients, 15.3%). Of the total patients, 16 (27.1%) died during their hospital stay, and the main etiologies were septic shock of abdominal origin (10 patients, 62.5%) followed by extra-abdominal shock (six patients, 37.5%). The average PCT level was 4.54 ± 8.12 on the first day of hospital stay, and 5.20 ± 10.90 at 72 h. The cut-off point was 1.26 ng/mL with the best sensitivity and specificity of PCT as a predictor of mortality at 72 h of 75% and 68%, respectively (area under the curve 0.7, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 - 0.88), and positive and negative predictive values of 0.46 and 0.87, respectively.

Conclusions

We propose the usefulness of PCT as a biochemical marker to predict mortality in patients with severe AP due to its accessibility in the hospital environment. We propose to carry out studies with more patients and follow-up times. In addition, it is necessary to consider other biomarkers associated with PCT to help us improve the positive predictive value of mortality in this disease.

Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Rectal Indomethacin vs. Compounded Rectal Diclofenac Prophylaxis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a 3-15% risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of PEP, but its cost has increased more than 20-fold over the past decade. Rectal diclofenac is also used to prevent PEP but is not commercially available in the United States. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PEP after administration of commercially available rectal indomethacin versus compounded rectal diclofenac and assess financial implications.

METHODS

ERCP cases at our institution with administration of 100 mg rectal indomethacin or 100 mg compounded rectal diclofenac between May 2018 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and severity of PEP was compared between the indomethacin (n = 728) and diclofenac (n = 304) groups. Risk factors (young age, female sex, history of pancreatitis or PEP, sphincterotomy during procedure, pancreatic indication, trainee involvement) and protective factors (prior sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct stenting) for PEP were compared between groups.

RESULTS

60 patients (8.2%) in the rectal indomethacin group and 25 patients (8.2%) in the compounded rectal diclofenac group developed PEP, resulting in moderate or severe PEP in 9 (15.0%) and 2 (8.0%) patients, respectively. The compounded rectal diclofenac group had more trainee involvement (46.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.0001) and more prior sphincterotomy cases (15.8% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0193) compared to the rectal indomethacin group; no statistically significant differences were observed in all other risk and protective factors. Following switch to compounded rectal diclofenac, institutional annual cost savings amounted to $441,460.62 and patient charge decreased 45-fold.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective single-center real-world analysis showed similar efficacy of rectal indomethacin and compounded rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP but demonstrates substantial cost savings after switching to compounded rectal diclofenac.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP), defined as acute inflammation of the pancreas, is one of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract leading to hospital admission in the United States. It is important for clinicians to appreciate that AP is heterogenous, progressing differently among patients and is often unpredictable. While most patients experience symptoms lasting a few days, almost one-fifth of patients will go on to experience complications, including pancreatic necrosis and/or organ failure, at times requiring prolonged hospitalization, intensive care, and radiologic, surgical, and/or endoscopic intervention. Early management is essential to identify and treat patients with AP to prevent complications. Patients with biliary pancreatitis typically will require surgery to prevent recurrent disease and may need early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography if the disease is complicated by cholangitis. Nutrition plays an important role in treating patients with AP. The safety of early refeeding and importance in preventing complications from AP are addressed. This guideline will provide an evidence-based practical approach to the management of patients with AP.

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.

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP.

Results

We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score.

Conclusions

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

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.

Universal prophylactic rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with a policy of selective pancreatic duct stenting significantly reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective for the prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, the benefit in average-risk patients is unclear. We aimed at assessing the benefit of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs in unselected consecutive patients to prevent PEP.

METHODS

All patients undergoing index ERCP procedures from January 2018 until March 2020 were included. All patients received prophylactic rectal diclofenac. A prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent was placed if there was repeated PD cannulation, at the discretion of the endoscopist. The frequency of PEP was compared with historical controls.

RESULTS

Of 769 patients who underwent ERCP, 34 (4.4%) developed PEP (mild in 29 [85.3%], moderate in four [11.8%] and severe in one [2.9%]). Female gender, precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent PD cannulation and procedural time of > 30 minutes predicted PEP in univariate analysis. Inadvertent PD cannulation (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8-11.7; p < 0.001) and procedural time of > 30 minutes (OR 8.5, 95% CI: 3.7-10.1; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. When compared with historical controls, the odds of PEP with prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs and selective PD stenting was 0.54 (CI: 0.31-0.93, p = 0.027). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 22 to prevent one PEP with prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs effectively prevents the occurrence of PEP in unselected consecutive patients in a real-world scenario.

Prognostic nomogram for acute pancreatitis after percutaneous biliary stent insertion in patients with malignant obstruction

Objective

This study aimed to develop and validate a nomogram to predict the risk of pancreatitis after percutaneous transhepatic biliary stent insertion (PTBS) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Materials and methods

We enrolled 314 patients who underwent PTBS for MBO from March 2016 to July 2021 in this retrospective study. We used univariate analysis to identify potential risk factors, while a multivariate logistic regression model was employed to establish a nomogram for predicting the risk of pancreatitis. The discrimination and calibration of the nomogram were evaluated by estimating the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) and by bootstrap resampling and visual inspection of the calibration curve. The clinical utility of the nomogram was assessed using decision curve analysis (DCA).

Results

After the procedure, 41 (13.1%) patients developed pancreatitis. Based on multivariate logistic regression analysis, young age (OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.69), stent insertion across the papilla (OR = 6.47, 95% CI 2.66 to 15.70), and visualization of the pancreatic duct (OR = 15.40, 95% CI 6.07 to 39.03) were associated with an elevated risk of pancreatitis. Importantly, the performance of the nomogram was satisfactory, with an identical AUC (0.807, 95% CI 0.730 to 0.883) and high-level agreement between predicted and observed probabilities as suggested in calibration curves. The DCA curve subsequently confirmed the clinical utility.

Conclusion

A predictive nomogram for pancreatitis after PTBS in patients with MBO was successfully established in the present study.

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.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glyceryl trinitrate, or combinations for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common and severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent evidence suggests that combinations based on rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are more beneficial in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have also demonstrated the efficacy of glyceryl trinitrate (GTN). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

AIM

To compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

METHODS

A systematic search was done for full-text RCTs of PEP in PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for eligible RCTs. The major data were extracted by two independent reviewers. The frequentist model was used to conduct this network meta-analysis and obtain the pairwise OR and 95%CI. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/).

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible RCTs were selected, evaluating seven preventive strategies in 9416 patients. Rectal indomethacin 100 mg plus sublingual GTN (OR: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.09–0.50), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0.34, 0.18–0.65), sublingual GTN (0.34, 0.12–0.97), and rectal indomethacin 100 mg (0.49, 0.33–0.73) were all more efficacious than placebo in preventing PEP. The combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual GTN had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) probability of (92.2%) and was the best preventive strategy for moderate-to-severe PEP with a SUCRA probability of (89.2%).

CONCLUSION

Combination of rectal indomethacin 100 mg with sublingual GTN offered better prevention of PEP than when used alone and could alleviate the severity of PEP.

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.

Fistulotomy versus standard cannulation as the primary technique for all patients undergoing ERCP with a native papilla: a protocol for a single center randomized controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an indispensable procedure for the management of pancreaticobiliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common serious adverse event. One risk factor of PEP is difficulty achieving biliary access. The conventional ERCP technique involves the cannulation of the bile duct via the ampulla of Vater, followed by sphincter incision using electrocautery. Conventionally, if the standard method fails then, precut techniques have been utilized as an alternative means of gaining biliary access. The needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) technique involves identifying the intra-duodenal segment of the bile duct and uses a needle knife to incise directly into the bile duct. This is done above and away from the natural office, thus minimizing thermal damage which may result in PEP. Our recent prospective study of 50 patients demonstrated the safety and feasibility of the NKF precut technique as a primary means of gaining biliary access. The next step is to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of initial NKF to the standard cannulation in a non-selective patient population undergoing ERCP.

Methods

A randomized control trial of 538 consecutive, non-selective patients with pancreaticobiliary disease undergoing ERCP at a tertiary care center in Kingston, Ontario, Canada, will be conducted. Patients will be randomized to one of two treatment groups, standard cannulation or NKF. The primary outcome of the study will be the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes will include rate of successful cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), time to successful cannulation, total procedure time, difficulty of cannulation, and incidence of complications.

Discussion

This RCT will yield important answers regarding the efficacy and safety of initial NKF to the standard cannulation in a non-selective patient population undergoing ERCP. The results of our study could alter ERCP practices and outcomes if NKF is shown to reduce PEP risk.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.govNCT04559867. Registered on September 23, 2020

Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenomatous lesions: A literature review

Ampullary adenomatous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract are rare and can be asymptomatic. Therefore, ampullary adenomas with malignant potential require prompt removal, regardless of whether they are adenomatous or carcinomatous lesions. Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective alternative therapy to surgery to treat duodenal papillary lesions in selected patients. Accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging of ampullary adenomatous lesions are critical for predicting prognosis and determining the most appropriate therapeutic approach. Furthermore, the management and prevention of adverse events and endoscopic treatment for remnant or recurrent lesions and surveillance are essential for successful endoscopic management of ampullary adenomatous lesions. This literature review was based on PubMed and MEDLINE and focused on recent advancements in the endoscopic papillectomy technique to provide a comprehensive view of endoscopic papillectomy to treat ampullary adenomatous lesions.

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.

Rectally Administered Low-Dose Diclofenac Has No Effect on Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Propensity Score Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the preventive effect of low-dose diclofenac (25-50 mg) on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) by propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 515 patients who underwent ERCP for the first time with or without the rectal administration of low-dose diclofenac before the procedure. For the purpose of minimization of the intrinsic selection bias, we compared the incidence rate of PEP between the diclofenac and control group after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 15 patients (2.9%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between the diclofenac (2.4%) and control group (3.3%) (P = 0.608). One hundred ninety matched pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed; however, the incidence rate of PEP was the same in both groups (2.1%, P = 1.000). In the subgroup analysis using data of patients with high-risk factors for developing PEP, the incidence rate of PEP was comparable between the diclofenac (3.8%) and control groups (4.0%) (P = 0.917).

CONCLUSIONS

In our propensity score analysis, rectal administration of low-dose diclofenac was not shown to be useful in preventing PEP.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are recommended for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). However, the effects of the combination of the two methods on preventing PEP are controversial. We hypothesized that some group of difficult patients might benefit from the combination of indomethacin plus PDS (IP) compared with indomethacin alone (IN).

METHODS

Patients with native papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in eight tertiary hospitals were screened. They were enrolled if the cannulation proved difficult and post-procedure indomethacin was administered. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between IP and IN groups. The primary outcome was PEP.

RESULTS

Among 4456 patients with available cannulation-related data, 1889 (42.4%) patients had difficult cannulation and received indomethacin. After PSM, both IP and IN groups included 332 patients. PEP was comparable between the two groups (12.7% vs 10.2%, P = 0.329). By subgroup analysis, the PEP rate was found to be lower in the IP group than in the IN group (7.3% vs 18.2%, P = 0.026) in patients undergoing double-guidewire technique (DGT). The results of an additional analysis using PSM in DGT patients were consistent with the subgroup analysis results (7.8% vs 19.4%, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that the combined prevention of PEP with indomethacin plus PDS was useful in PEP prevention in patients undergoing DGT. Other groups of patients with difficult cannulation may not benefit from the combination strategy.

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.

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

Background and study aims

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

Patients and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Trial registration number

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

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.

Pharmacological Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Where Do We Stand Now?

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequently occurring complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). PEP is associated with significant morbidity and mortality; that is why the prevention of PEP is essential. Pharmacoprevention holds a central position in PEP prophylaxis. The current literature explores the efficacy of various pharmacological agents in preventing PEP, their routes of administration, and the correct administration timing. Data was collected on PubMed using regular keywords, the latter yielded 2077 papers. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 218 papers were selected and screened and 28 studies were finally chosen after the removal of duplicate and irrelevant studies. The selected 28 articles comprised 25 randomized clinical trials and three systematic reviews.

The study concludes that rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) administered before ERCP are effective in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. The efficacy of rectal NSAIDs in low to medium risk group is not well established. A combination of rectal NSAIDs and intravenous hydration provides improved prophylaxis against PEP in high-risk patients than NSAIDs alone. Nafamostat, sublingual nitrates, and intravenous hydration are potential alternatives in patients with contraindications to NSAIDs.

Fistulotomy-First Approach is Safe and Effective in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: Results of a Prospective Case Series

Background and Aims

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of using needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) as a primary cannulation technique in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with a native papilla.

Patients and Methods

This prospective feasibility study enrolled 50 patients between December 2018 and June 2019. The procedure was performed by two expert endoscopists (R.B. and L.H.). The primary outcome was the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Other variables assessed included the success rate of cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD), time to successful cannulation, and incidence of adverse events.

Results

Between December 2018 and June 2019, 50 patients enrolled in the study. The mean age was 63.4 years (standard deviation 18.1), and there were 26 females. Indications included biliary obstruction secondary to malignancy (n = 14) and choledocholithiasis (n = 36). Successful cannulation of the CBD through the fistulotomy occurred in 49/50 cases. The time to successful cannulation was 5.1 minutes (range 0.5 to 23 minutes). Mild acute pancreatitis occurred in two cases (4%). Post-ERCP bleeding occurred in three patients (6%)

Conclusions

In this pilot study, NKF was used as the primary biliary access technique and it was demonstrated that it appears to be at least as safe as the traditional access technique with a sphinctertome. However, its role as a primary cannulation technique requires further investigation with multicenter, randomized control studies.

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in low-risk patients

Background:

Evidence shows that rectal indomethacin (RI) reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The prophylactic role of RI in low-risk patients has not yet been identified. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP in low-risk patients.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP. RI was available starting November 2012. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected.

Results:

The study population included 2238 patients who underwent ERCP (1055 in the RI group and 1183 in the control group). PEP was diagnosed in 107 patients (4.8%). In a multivariate model of consecutive patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 55% (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.94; P=0.03). In a multivariate model that included 1874 (84%) low-risk patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 62% (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19-0.74; P=0.004). Propensity-matched group analysis was performed for low-risk native papilla patients. RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 61% (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18-0.8; P=0.009).

Conclusion:

RI reduced PEP in consecutive as well as low-risk patients. RI should be administrated in consecutive patients unless contraindicated. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Real-World Practice Patterns in the Era of Rectal Indomethacin for Prophylaxis Against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a High-Risk Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of indomethacin suppositories for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients was established in a landmark trial published in 2012. The aims of this study were to measure the adoption of indomethacin prophylaxis in widespread clinical practice, evaluate concurrent trends in pancreatic duct (PD) stent utilization, and estimate the impact of these changes on PEP in a high-risk population.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a commercial database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health, Somers, NY) that aggregates electronic health records from 26 US healthcare systems from 2009 to 2018. Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and were at high risk for PEP based on narrow criteria. PEP was defined as an emergency department or hospital admission 1-5 days after ERCP with an associated diagnosis of pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Twenty six thousand eight hundred twenty ERCPs were performed on this high-risk cohort from 2009 to 2018. The overall PEP rate during the study period was 8.6%. There was no decrease in PEP rates from 2012 to 2018. Beginning in 2012, indomethacin usage increased linearly (P < 0.001), but remained below 50% in 2018. As indomethacin increased, utilization of PD stents declined abruptly from 2013 to 2014 (40.7%-8.5%) and trended to a nadir of 3.0%.

DISCUSSION

Despite its low cost, widespread availability, and level I evidence of benefit in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, the adoption of rectal indomethacin during ERCP has been slow and the medication continues to be under-utilized. In parallel, the PD stent usage has declined dramatically. The lack of change in PEP rates during the study period could be attributable to the persistent low usage of rectal indomethacin or the decline in PD stent use. Further educational efforts and quality assurance measures are warranted to ensure that rectal indomethacin and PD stent placement are more appropriately used in clinical practice.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alleviate severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by inhibiting inflammation and reducing apoptosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The prophylactic effect of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis has been observed for a long time. However, whether the selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs possess similar abilities and the mechanisms by which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs work remain unclear. The present study aimed to determine the protective effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP pancreatitis in a rat model and examine underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

Thirty-two female rats were equally and randomly divided into four groups: the sham group, post-ERCP pancreatitis model group, indomethacin-pretreated group, and parecoxib-pretreated group. Indomethacin or parecoxib was delivered 30 min prior to surgery; 24 h after post-ERCP pancreatitis establishment, the rats were sacrificed. Serum amylase and lipase activities, inflammatory cytokine release, pancreatic histopathological scores, neutrophil infiltration, and the expression pattern cyclooxygenase at the protein level and pancreatic apoptosis were quantified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Both indomethacin and parecoxib inhibited the activities of serum amylase and lipase and reduced the severity of pancreatic histopathology. Mechanistically, both drugs decreased the expression level of cyclooxygenase 2; however, they had no influence on the cyclooxygenase 1 protein level. Moreover, they reduced inflammatory cytokine release, neutrophil infiltration into the pancreas, and NF-κB p65 activation. Notably, we found that apoptotic cells in the pancreas were remarkably diminished after the administration of both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs exert protective effects against post-ERCP pancreatitis by restraining inflammation and reducing acinar cell apoptosis through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2.

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.

Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Risk factors and role of NSAIDs in primary prophylaxis

Objective:

To determine efficacy of diclofenac suppository in reducing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and identify risk factors for PEP.

Methods:

This is a placebo-based prospective study at Department of Medicine & Gastroenterology, Services Institute of Medical Sciences / Services Hospital, Lahore performed from January 2018 to June 2019. Patients were randomized to receive diclofenac suppository or glycerine suppository before ERCP. Both groups were compared for PEP using chi square x² test while risk factors for PEP were determined using binary logistic regression.

Results:

Total of 165 patients with mean age 49.1(±15.2) and male to female ratio 1/1.6 (63/102) were included. Among 82 (49.7%) patients in diclofenac group, 8 (9.7%) developed pancreatitis while 19(22.9%) of 83(50.3%) in placebo group had PEP (p value 0.02). After multivariate analysis, age>45 years (p value 0.014, OR 3.2), Bilirubin >3 mg/dl (p value 0.004 OR 3.58), time to cannulation> 5 minutes (p value<0.000 OR 9.2), use of precut (p value< 0.000 OR 4.9), pancreatic duct cannulation (p value 0.000 OR 5.46) and total procedure time >30 minutes (p value 0.01 OR 3.92) were risk factors for PEP.

Conclusion:

Pre-procedure Diclofenac suppository reduces post-ERCP pancreatitis. Age > 45 years, serum bilirubin > 3 mg/dl, cannulation time > 5 minutes, use of precut, pancreatic duct cannulation and procedure time > 30 minutes are risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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.

Comparative Efficacy of 9 Major Drugs for Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most common complications after ERCP. The optimal drugs for reducing the risk of PEP are still unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 9 major drugs used worldwide for the prevention of PEP through a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the literature up to October 2018 on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing allopurinol, diclofenac, gabexate (GAB), glyceryl trinitrate (GTN), indomethacin, nafamostat, octreotide, somatostatin, and ulinastatin for protection against PEP were included.

RESULTS

Eighty-six randomized controlled trials involving 25,246 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. Results indicated that diclofenac, GAB, GTN, indomethacin, somatostatin, and ulinastatin were more effective than placebo with odds ratios ranging between 0.48 (95% credible interval, 0.26-0.86) for GAB and 0.61 (0.39-0.94) for somatostatin. However, allopurinol, nafamostat, and octreotide showed similar efficacy as placebo in reducing the risk of PEP. No significant differences were found in the efficacy between diclofenac, GAB, GTN, indomethacin, somatostatin, and ulinastatin. In terms of prognosis, GAB may be the most effective treatment (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=70.6%) and the least effective was octreotide (surface under the cumulative ranking curve=28%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our analysis suggests that GAB may be the most effective drug in preventing PEP, the limitations of our study warrants more high-quality head-to-head trials of these clinical drugs in the future.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Rectal Indomethacin and Spraying of Duodenal Papilla With Epinephrine Increases Risk of Pancreatitis Following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin and spraying of the duodenal papilla with epinephrine might reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a randomized trial to compare the effects of the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine (IE) vs indomethacin plus saline (IS) in prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at 10 centers in China, from February 2017 to October 2017, of 1158 patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were assigned randomly to groups given IE (n = 576) or IS (n = 582). All patients received a single dose of rectal indomethacin within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of dilute epinephrine (IE group) or saline (IS group) then was sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall PEP. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The study was terminated at the interim analysis for safety concerns and futility. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 49 patients in the IE group (8.5%) and in 31 patients in the IS group (5.3%) (relative risk, 1.60, 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .033). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients with postsphincterotomy bleeding (2.1% in the IE group and 1.5% in the IS group) and biliary infection (1.2% in the IE group and 2.2% in the IS group).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, we found the combination of rectal indomethacin with papillary epinephrine spraying increased the risk of PEP compared with indomethacin alone. Spray epinephrine should not be used with rectal indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT03057769.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Biliary endoscopy in the management of primary sclerosing cholangitis and its complications

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a chronic, idiopathic, cholestatic liver disease characterized by inflammation and fibrosis of the intrahepatic and/or extrahepatic bile ducts. It can affect individuals of all age groups and gender, has no established pharmacotherapy, and is associated with a variety of neoplastic (e.g. cholangiocarcinoma) and non-neoplastic (e.g. dominant strictures) hepatobiliary complications. Given these considerations, endoscopy plays a major role in the care of patients with PSC. In this review, we discuss and provide updates regarding endoscopic considerations in the management of hepatobiliary manifestations and complications of PSC. Where evidence is limited, we suggest pragmatic approaches based on currently available data and expert opinion.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus placebo for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary therapeutic procedure for treatment of diseases that affect the biliary tree and pancreatic duct. While the therapeutic success rate of ERCP is high, the procedure can cause complications, such as acute pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, and perforation. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing PEP following (ERCP). Materials and methods  We searched databases, such as MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of NSAIDs and placebo for the prevention of PEP were included. Outcomes assessed included incidence of PEP, severity of pancreatitis, route of administration, and type of NSAIDs. Results  Twenty-one RCTs were considered eligible with a total of 6854 patients analyzed. Overall, 3427 patients used NSAIDs before ERCP and 3427 did not use the drugs (control group). In the end, 250 cases of acute pancreatitis post-ERCP were diagnosed in the NSAIDs group and 407 cases in the placebo group. Risk for PEP was lower in the NSAID group (risk difference (RD): -0.05; 95 % confidence interval (CI): -0.07 to - 0.03; number need to treat (NNT), 20; P  < 0.05). Use of NSAIDs effectively prevented mild pancreatitis compared with use of placebo (2.5 % vs. 4.1 %; 95 % CI, -0.05 to - 0.01; NNT, 33; P  < 0.05), but the information on moderate and severe PEP could not be completely elucidated. Only rectal administration reduced incidence of PEP (6.8 % vs. 13 %; 95 % CI, -0.10 to - 0.04; NNT, 20; P  < 0.05). Furthermore, only diclofenac or indomethacin use was effective in preventing PEP. Conclusions  Rectal administration of diclofenac and indomethacin significantly reduced risk of developing mild PEP. Further RCTs are needed to compare efficacy between NSAID administration pathways in prevention of PEP after ERCP.

Impact of body mass index on the incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background

Pancreatitis is a potential major complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP pancreatitis; PEP). Obesity has been associated with increased severity of acute pancreatitis. However, the correlation between obesity and PEP is controversial. Therefore, our study aimed to clarify the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and the incidence and severity of PEP.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to elucidate the relationship between BMI and PEP in all patients who underwent ERCP in a tertiary referral center between January 2009 and October 2016. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected. PEP was defined by consensus criteria. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between BMI and PEP.

Results

The analysis included 2236 patients whose BMI was recorded and had adequate follow up (921 with BMI≥30 kg/m², 1315 with BMI<30 kg/m²). PEP was diagnosed in 107 (4.8%) patients. PEP was seen in 49 obese patients (5.3%) and 58 non-obese patients (4.4%). In the univariate and multivariate analysis BMI≥30 kg/m² was not associated with PEP (odds ratio 1.2, 95%CI 0.8-1.8; P=0.32). A subgroup analysis of different BMI subcategories found that BMI was not associated with the incidence or severity of PEP.

Conclusion

In the largest study to date, neither obesity nor low body weight increased the incidence or severity of PEP.

Clinical course of biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: endoscopic sphincterotomy and functional dyspepsia as affecting factors

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The objective of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of treatment selection for biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction by severe pain frequency and the risk factors for recurrence including the history of functional gastrointestinal disorder.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-six sphincter of Oddi dysfunction patients who were confirmed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography enrolled in this study. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed for type I and manometry-confirmed type II sphincter of Oddi dysfunction patients with severe pain (⩾2 times/year; endoscopic sphincterotomy group). Others were treated medically (non-endoscopic sphincterotomy group).

RESULTS

The short-term effectiveness rate of endoscopic sphincterotomy was 91%. The final remission rates of the endoscopic sphincterotomy and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy groups were 86% and 100%, respectively. Symptoms relapsed after endoscopic sphincterotomy in 32% of patients. Patients in the endoscopic sphincterotomy and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy groups had or developed functional dyspepsia in 41% and 14%, irritable bowel syndrome in 5% and 14%, and gastroesophageal reflux disorder in 14% and 0%, respectively. History or new onset of functional dyspepsia was related to recurrence on multivariate analysis. The frequency of occurrence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cholangitis was high in both groups. Two new occurrences of bile duct stone cases were observed in each group.

CONCLUSION

According to the treatment criteria, endoscopic and medical treatment for biliary-type sphincter of Oddi dysfunction has high effectiveness, but recurrences are common. Recurrences may be related to new onset or a history of functional dyspepsia.

The efficacy of oleuropein against non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug induced toxicity in rat kidney

Indomethacin is generally used in clinical therapeutics as a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. However, its use has been limited due to the gastrointestinal and renal toxic effects of this drug. These toxic effects were associated with not only the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis but also drug-elevated oxidative stress. To ameliorate these toxicities, natural antioxidants can be used as an alternative and/or combination therapies. Therefore, the current study was conducted to assess the renoprotective effects of oleuropein against indomethacin-induced renal damages. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were pretreated with oleuropein (75, 150, and 300 mg/kg), and then treated with indomethacin (25 mg/kg). To evaluate kidney function, serum blood urea nitrogen, uric acid, and creatinine were measured. In addition, prostaglandin E₂ , tumor necrosis factor-alpha, endothelial nitric oxide synthase, caspase-3, oxidant/antioxidant status, and 8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosine levels were determined for the antioxidative and anti-inflammatory effects of oleuropein. Tissue sections were also histopathologically assessed. The biochemical and histopathological analysis proved the toxic effects of indomethacin on kidney. However, the pretreatment with oleuropein (300 mg/kg) protects kidney from indomethacin-induced damages. Our study proved that prior administration of oleuropein has renoprotective activity against indomethacin-associated toxicities.

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.

Update on the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure to manage pancreaticobiliary disease. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP with a significant burden of morbidity and cost.

RECENT FINDINGS

Appropriate indication and counseling is mandatory especially for patients at increased risk for PEP such as those with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, pancreatic indications, and a prior history of PEP. Guidewire-facilitated deep cannulation is favored over contrast injection. High-quality trials support the use of rectal administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and pancreatic duct stent placement for high-risk patients. There is emerging evidence favoring the use of rectal NSAIDs and aggressive hydration in average-risk patients though further studies are required. There is also growing interest in the use of combination therapies as well such as pancreatic stents in combination with NSAIDs. The initial step towards PEP prevention involves careful patient selection and informed decision-making. Endoscopists should use several approaches to mitigate the risk of PEP, including guidewire-assisted cannulation, pancreatic stent placement, and rectal NSAIDs use for high-risk patients. The exact role of aggressive hydration and combination therapies needs to be further investigated.

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.

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.

Does rectal diclofenac reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis? A district general hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy in the literature recently regarding the efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of PEP in three distinct groups of patients at the Royal United Hospital, Bath: no use of rectal diclofenac, selective use and blanket use without contraindication.

METHOD

Readmission data, blood results, radiology reports and discharge summaries were used to identify patients with PEP from August 2010 to December 2015. The administration of rectal diclofenac postprocedure was recorded from the endoscopy reporting system.

RESULTS

1318 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) were performed by four endoscopists during the study period with 66 (5.0%) cases of pancreatitis. 445 ERCPs were performed prior to the introduction of NSAID use during which time, with an incidence of 35 (7.9%) episodes of PEP. During the selective period of NSAID use (high-risk patients) 539 ERCPs were performed and 72 (13.4%) patients received NSAIDs. 17 (3.2%) developed PEP. 334 ERCPs were performed when NSAIDs were given to all patients without contraindication. 289 (86.5%) of patients received rectal diclofenac and 13 (3.9%) developed pancreatitis. There is a statistically significant decrease in PEP comparing the groups of patients receiving NSAIDs selectively (p=0.0009) or routinely (p=0.0172) when compared with none. There is no difference between the selective and routine group (p=0.571).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the introduction of a selective or routine use of NSAIDs for PEP in a District General Hospital (DGH) significantly decreases the risk of pancreatitis (risk reduction 43.7%).