Early successes and late failures in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

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.

Immune Inhibitory Properties and Therapeutic Prospects of Transforming Growth Factor-Beta and Interleukin 10 in Autoimmune Hepatitis

Transforming growth factor-beta and interleukin 10 have diverse immune inhibitory properties that have restored homeostatic defense mechanisms in experimental models of autoimmune disease. The goals of this review are to describe the actions of each cytokine, review their investigational use in animal models and patients, and indicate their prospects as interventions in autoimmune hepatitis. English abstracts were identified in PubMed by multiple search terms. Full-length articles were selected for review, and secondary and tertiary bibliographies were developed. Transforming growth factor-beta expands the natural and inducible populations of regulatory T cells, limits the proliferation of natural killer cells, suppresses the activation of naïve CD8⁺ T cells, decreases the production of interferon-gamma, and stimulates fibrotic repair. Interleukin 10 selectively inhibits the CD28 co-stimulatory signal for antigen recognition and impairs antigen-specific activation of uncommitted CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells. It also inhibits maturation of dendritic cells, suppresses Th17 cells, supports regulatory T cells, and limits production of diverse pro-inflammatory cytokines. Contradictory immune stimulatory effects have been associated with each cytokine and may relate to the dose and accompanying cytokine milieu. Experimental findings have not translated into successful early clinical trials. The recombinant preparation of each agent in low dosage has been safe in human studies. In conclusion, transforming growth factor-beta and interleukin 10 have powerful immune inhibitory actions of potential therapeutic value in autoimmune hepatitis. The keys to their therapeutic application will be to match their predominant non-redundant function with the pivotal pathogenic mechanism or cytokine deficiency and to avoid contradictory immune stimulatory actions.

Quality of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for nurse assistants: a survey

Background:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatoscopy (ERCP) is a technical and complex procedure requiring highly skilled and trained endoscopists and assistants. Literature so far has highlighted a need for better training for assistants of ERCP, as well as linking the volumes of procedures performed to improved success rates and reduced complication rates.

Methods:

A survey was undertaken of 51 ERCP nurse assistants' experience of training in ERCP from district general, teaching and tertiary hospitals in the UK. Nursing assistants are registered nurses with endoscopy skills or nursing practitioners of band 4 and above with experience in ERCP.

Findings:

Of those surveyed, 93% had undertaken fewer than 50 procedures supervised by experienced nurse assistants prior to being deemed competent, with 63% having performed fewer than 25 procedures. Only 40% felt confident at independently assisting. Attending formal training had little impact on this, but did improve confidence in out-of-hours work. Participants' main suggestions for training were a course involving familiarisation with equipment, close supervision and anatomy training.

Conclusions:

There is a lack of guidance on the correct training and experience required for nurse assistants. This survey's findings suggest many are commencing independent practice feeling underprepared. More work needs to be done to improve the quality of nurse training and support their learning, and further studies are needed to look into the impact this has on patient outcomes.

The effect of indomethacin in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a severe complication with substantial morbidity and mortality. Indomethacin has been identified to prevent this complication; however, the results using indomethacin have varied. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy of rectally administered indomethacin in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in November 2012. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials (randomized controlled trials) in adult patients that compared rectally administered indomethacin versus placebo in prevention of PEP were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model to assess the primary outcome (PEP) and secondary outcomes (mild or moderate to severe PEP) using Review Manager 5.1.

RESULTS

Four randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 1422). The use of indomethacin near the time of ERCP demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in PEP (odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.71; P < 0.01), mild PEP (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32-0.86; P = 0.01), and moderate to severe PEP (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.83; P = 0.01) as compared with placebo. The number needed to treat with indomethacin to prevent 1 episode of pancreatitis is 17 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP. We recommend using indomethacin before or just after the procedure in patients undergoing ERCP.

Indomethacin for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prophylaxis: Is it the magic bullet?

Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Pancreatic duct stent insertion after ERCP has been widely accepted as the standard of care for the prevention of this complication in high-risk patients. Unfortunately, the placement of pancreatic stents requires higher level of endoscopic expertise and is not always feasible due to anatomic considerations. Therefore, effective non-invasive pharmacologic prophylaxis remains appealing, particularly if it is inexpensive, easily administered, has a low risk side effect profile and is widely available. There have been multiple studies evaluating potential pharmacologic candidates for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, most of them yielding disappointing results. A recently published large, multi-center, randomized controlled trial reported that in high risk patients a single dose of rectal indomethacin administered immediately after the ERCP significantly decreased the incidence of PEP compare to placebo.

Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a practice survey

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic pancreatic stenting is widely used by expert biliary endoscopists to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are thought to prevent PEP.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the use of pancreatic stenting and NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis among endoscopists and its determinants.

DESIGN

A survey was distributed to 467 endoscopists attending a course on therapeutic digestive endoscopy.

INTERVENTION

Completed surveys were collected from 141 endoscopists performing ERCP in 29 countries (answer rate 30.2%); practices were most often located in community hospitals with an annual hospital volume of < or = 500 ERCPs (in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France in about half of cases). For all conditions listed, including needle-knife precut, previous PEP, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and ampullectomy, less than half of the endoscopists reported attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting in > or = 75% of cases. Thirty (21.3%) survey respondents did not perform prophylactic pancreatic stenting in any circumstance; this was mainly ascribed to lack of experience. Measurement of PEP incidence and an annual hospital volume of > 500 ERCPs were independently associated with the use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (P = .005 and P = .030, respectively). Most survey respondents (n = 118, 83.7%) did not use NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. This was mainly ascribed to lack of scientific evidence of its benefits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Proportion of cases in which pancreatic stenting is attempted during ERCP; reasons for not using prophylactic pancreatic stenting or NSAIDs.

LIMITATIONS

Survey, not an audit of practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite scientific evidence of its benefits, use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting is not as widely adopted as previously thought; use of NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis is marginal.

Meta-analysis: octreotide prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis, but only at sufficient doses

BACKGROUND

Effects of octreotide on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis have been studied in many clinical trials. These trials have yielded inconclusive results. Results of more recent studies using larger doses, however, seem to be more optimistic.

AIM

To examine effects of octreotide at different doses on PEP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of relevant databases, including Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index yielded 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Trials were divided into two groups according to the total dosage of octreotide: <0.5 mg (OCT1), > or =0.5 mg (OCT2). The rate of PEP was analysed using a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

At doses of > or =0.5 mg, octreotide reduced the rate of PEP. In the OCT2 group, analysis revealed a statistically significant difference on PEP between the octreotide group and the controls (3.4% vs. 7.5%, pooled OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28-0.73; P = 0.001, NNT = 25). In the OCT1 group, the rate of PEP was similar between patients receiving octreotide and the controls (7.2% vs. 6.0%, pooled OR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.80-1.91; P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Octreotide is effective in preventing PEP, but only at sufficient doses (> or =0.5 mg).

Endoscopic evaluation and therapies of biliary disorders

Biliary disorders were once only accessible by orthodox surgery but are now diagnosed and treated by multiple methods and specialists. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has flourished and continues to grow after its introduction with the first biliary spincterotomies in 1974 in Germany and Japan. The therapeutic biliary endoscopist contributes to the management of all biliary disorders and in many cases endoscopy is the preferable approach. However, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography remains a risky procedure and risk is best reduced by strictly limiting its use.