Comparison Costs of ERCP and MRCP in Patients with Suspected Biliary Obstruction Based on a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of patients with suspected biliary obstruction remains unclear, and includes the possible performance of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

OBJECTIVES

To complete a cost analysis based on a medical effectiveness randomized trial comparing an ERCP-first approach with an MRCP-first approach in patients with suspected bile duct obstruction.

METHODS

The management strategies were based on a medical effectiveness trial of 257 patients over a 12-month follow-up period. Direct and indirect costs were included, adopting a societal perspective. The cost values are expressed in 2012 Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

Total per-patient direct costs were Can$3547 for ERCP-first patients and Can$4013 for MRCP-first patients. Corresponding indirect costs were Can$732 and Can$694, respectively. Causes for differences in direct costs included a more frequent second procedure and a greater mean number of hospital days over the year in patients of the MRCP-first group. In contrast, it is the ERCP-first patients whose indirect costs were greater, principally due to more time away from activities of daily living. Choosing an ERCP-first strategy rather than an MRCP-first strategy saved on average Can$428 per patient over the 12-month follow-up duration; however, there existed a large amount of overlap when varying total cost estimates across a sensitivity analysis range based on observed resources utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost analysis suggests only a small difference in total costs, favoring the ERCP-first group, and is principally attributable to procedures and hospitalizations with little impact from indirect cost measurements.

Split-Dose Preparations Are Superior to Day-Before Bowel Cleansing Regimens: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There are different regimens of preparing the colon for colonoscopy, including polyethylene glycol (PEG), sodium phosphate, picosulfate, or oral sulfate solutions. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of split-dose vs other colon preparation regimens, the optimal products for use, and the most effective preparation volumes.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, and ISI Web of knowledge databases, from January 1980 to March 2014, for published results from randomized trials that assessed split-dose regimens vs day-before colonoscopy preparation. We excluded studies that included pediatric or hospitalized patients, or patients with inflammatory bowel disease. The primary outcome was efficacy of bowel cleansing. Secondary outcomes included side effects or complications, outcomes of procedures, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, and the amount of time required for patients to resume daily activities.

RESULTS

We identified 47 trials that fulfilled our inclusion criteria (n = 13,487 patients). Split-dose preparations provided significantly better colon cleansing than day-before preparations (odds ratio [OR], 2.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.86-3.39), as well as day-before preparations with PEG (OR, 2.60; 95% confidence interval, 1.46-4.63), sodium phosphate (OR, 9.34; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-41.11), or picosulfate (OR, 3.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.95-6.45). PEG split-dose preparations of 3 L or more yielded greater bowel cleanliness than lower-volume split-dose regimens (OR, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-3.46), but only in intention-to-treat analysis. A higher proportion of patients were willing to repeat split-dose vs day-before cleansing (OR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-3.46), and low-volume split-dose preparations vs high-volume split-dose preparation (OR, 4.95; 95% confidence interval, 2.21-11.10). There were no differences between preparations in other secondary outcome measures. However, there was variation among studies in definitions and main and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on meta-analysis, split-dose regimens increase the quality of colon cleansing and are preferred by patients compared with day-before preparations. Additional research is required to evaluate oral sulfate solution-based and PEG low-volume regimens further.

Republished: obesity and colorectal cancer

Excess body weight, as defined by the body mass index (BMI), has been associated with several diseases and includes subjects who are overweight (BMI≥25-29.9 kg/m(2)) or obese (BMI≥30 kg/m(2)). Overweight and obesity constitute the fifth leading risk for overall mortality, accounting for at least 2.8 million adult deaths each year. In addition around 11% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases have been attributed to overweight and obesity in Europe. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, whereas the association is less consistent in women. Similar trends exist for colorectal adenoma, although the risk appears lower. Visceral fat, or abdominal obesity, seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/m(2) increase in BMI confers additional risk (HR 1.03). Obesity might be associated with worse cancer outcomes, such as recurrence of the primary cancer or mortality. Several factors, including reduced sensitivity to antiangiogenic-therapeutic regimens, might explain these differences. Except for wound infection, obesity has no significant impact on surgical procedures. The underlying mechanisms linking obesity to CRC are still a matter of debate, but metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance and modifications in levels of adipocytokines seem to be of great importance. Other biological factors such as the gut microbita or bile acids are emerging. Many questions still remain unanswered: should preventive strategies specifically target obese patients? Is the risk of cancer great enough to propose prophylactic bariatric surgery in certain patients with obesity?

Randomized trial in malignant biliary obstruction: plastic vs partially covered metal stents

AIM

To compare efficacy and complications of partially covered self-expandable metal stent (pcSEMS) to plastic stent (PS) in patients treated for malignant, infrahilar biliary obstruction.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective randomized clinical trial with treatment allocation to a pcWallstent(®) (SEMS) or a 10 French PS. Palliative patients aged ≥ 18, for infrahilar malignant biliary obstruction and a Karnofsky performance scale index > 60% from 6 participating North American university centers. Primary endpoint was time to stent failure, with secondary outcomes of death, adverse events, Karnofsky performance score and short-form-36 scale administered on a three-monthly basis for up to 2 years. Survival analyses were performed for stent failure and death, with Cox proportional hazards regression models to determine significant predictive characteristics.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were accrued over 37 mo, 42 were randomized to the SEMS group and 83 patients were available for analyses. Time to stent failure was 385.3 ± 52.5 d in the SEMS and 153.3 ± 19.8 d in the PS group, P = 0.006. Time to death did not differ between groups (192.3 ± 23.4 d for SEMS vs 211.5 ± 28.0 d for PS, P = 0.70). The only significant predictor was treatment allocation, relating to the time to stent failure (P = 0.01). Amongst other measured outcomes, only cholangitis differed, being more common in the PS group (4.9% vs 24.5%, P = 0.029). The small number of patients in follow-up limits longitudinal assessments of performance and quality of life. From an initially planned 120 patients, only 85 patients were recruited.

CONCLUSION

Partially covered SEMS result in a longer duration till stent failure without increased complication rates, yet without accompanying measurable benefits in survival, performance, or quality of life.

Meta-analysis: rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Despite initial evidence in the literature, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have not been widely used to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

AIM

To complete a meta-analysis of high-quality RCTs that included the latest available literature published after past meta-analytical efforts

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was carried out for RCTs comparing peri-procedural rectal indomethacin and placebo in preventing PEP. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fixed model Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis, Q test and I(2) index were used. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were planned.

RESULTS

A total of four of 61 retrieved trials between 2007 and 2012 (n = 1470) were included. No significant publication bias existed. All studies used similar criteria to detect pancreatitis. The pooled proportion estimate of the rate of pancreatitis was 5.1% with indomethacin and 10.3% with placebo. After excluding the high-risk patients, the rates were 3.9% and 7.9% respectively. Fixed model meta-analysis showed that the rate of pancreatitis was significantly lower using indomethacin as compared with placebo [OR = 0.49(0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. There was no significant statistical or clinical heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the difference remained unchanged for average-risk population [OR = 0.49(0.28-0.85); P = 0.01] or in preventing severe PEP [OR = 0.41(0.21-0.78); P = 0.007]. The result of the main outcome remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin used immediately before or after ERCP significantly reduces the risk of PEP to half in both low- and high-risk patients, and with both statistically and clinically significant conclusions. These results suggest that a possible change in routine practice for patients at both low and high risk of developing PEP should be advocated.

Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones

BACKGROUND

The preferred initial investigation with either magnetic resonance (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with suspected biliary obstruction remains controversial in many clinical settings.

AIM

To assess the effectiveness of an initial MRCP vs. ERCP in the work-up of patients at moderate likelihood of a suspected biliary obstruction.

METHODS

Patients with an unconfirmed benign biliary obstruction, based on laboratory and ultrasound findings, were randomised to an ERCP-first or MRCP-first strategy, stratified by level of obstruction. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a disease or procedure-related bilio-pancreatic adverse events within the next 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of subsequent bilio-pancreatic procedures, duration of hospitalisation, days away from activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (SF-36) and mortality.

RESULTS

We randomised 126 patients to ERCP-first and 131 to MRCP-first (age 54 ± 18 years, 62% female, 39% post-cholecystectomy). In follow-up, 18/126 (14.3%) ERCP-first and 25/131 (19.1%) MRCP-first patients experienced a procedure- or disease-related complication (P = 0.30) (disease-related in 13 and 18 patients, and procedure-related in 5 and 7 patients respectively). A cause of biliary obstruction was found in 39.7% vs. 49.6% of patients (P = 0.11). Sixty-six (50%) patients in the MRCP-first group ended up avoiding an ERCP in follow-up. ERCP-first and MRCP-first patients were away from usual activities for 3.4 ± 7.7 days and 2.0 ± 4.8 days respectively (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

A strategy of MRCP-first decreased the need for subsequent MRCPs, but not complications. Further study is required to define factors influencing the eventual use of MRCP vs. ERCP in appropriately selected patients (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01424657).

Meta-analysis: rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Despite initial evidence in the literature, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have not been widely used to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

AIM

To complete a meta-analysis of high-quality RCTs that included the latest available literature published after past meta-analytical efforts

METHODS

A comprehensive electronic literature search was carried out for RCTs comparing peri-procedural rectal indomethacin and placebo in preventing PEP. Methodological quality was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Fixed model Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis, Q test and I(2) index were used. Several subgroup and sensitivity analyses were planned.

RESULTS

A total of four of 61 retrieved trials between 2007 and 2012 (n = 1470) were included. No significant publication bias existed. All studies used similar criteria to detect pancreatitis. The pooled proportion estimate of the rate of pancreatitis was 5.1% with indomethacin and 10.3% with placebo. After excluding the high-risk patients, the rates were 3.9% and 7.9% respectively. Fixed model meta-analysis showed that the rate of pancreatitis was significantly lower using indomethacin as compared with placebo [OR = 0.49(0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. There was no significant statistical or clinical heterogeneity. In subgroup analysis, the difference remained unchanged for average-risk population [OR = 0.49(0.28-0.85); P = 0.01] or in preventing severe PEP [OR = 0.41(0.21-0.78); P = 0.007]. The result of the main outcome remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin used immediately before or after ERCP significantly reduces the risk of PEP to half in both low- and high-risk patients, and with both statistically and clinically significant conclusions. These results suggest that a possible change in routine practice for patients at both low and high risk of developing PEP should be advocated.

Laparoscopic Heller's myotomy versus pneumatic dilation in the treatment of idiopathic achalasia: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Pneumatic dilation (PD) and laparoscopic Heller's myotomy (LHM) are the mainstays of therapy in idiopathic achalasia. Equipoise exists in choosing the first-line therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess comparative efficacies and adverse event rates of these methods.

DESIGN

Intention-to-treat, fixed-model, Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials comparing PD with LHM.

SETTING

Randomized controlled trial comparing PD versus LHM.

PATIENTS

Patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic achalasia.

INTERVENTION

Comprehensive electronic and manual literature search from 1966 to March 2012 independently by two reviewers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Response rate, rate of different adverse events, and quality of life after each therapy.

RESULTS

Three of 161 retrieved studies between 2007 and 2011, including 346 patients, were included. At 1 year, the cumulative response rate was significantly higher with LHM (86% vs 76%, odds ratio 1.98 (confidence interval 1.14-3.45); P = .02), with no significant heterogeneity (P = .39; I(2) 0%). Rates of major mucosal tears requiring subsequent intervention with LHM were significantly lower than those of esophageal perforation with PD requiring postprocedural medical or surgical therapy (0.6% and 4.8%, respectively; P = .04). Postprocedural rates of gastroesophageal reflux, lower esophageal sphincter pressures, and quality of life scores did not differ in trials with sufficient data. Data on longer follow-up were not available.

LIMITATIONS

Lack of data on follow-ups over 1 year and a small number of included studies.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that LHM may provide greater response rates as compared with graded PD in the treatment of newly diagnosed idiopathic achalasia, with lesser rates of major adverse events, in up to 1 year after treatment, although additional data are needed to confirm the validity of this conclusion in long-term follow-up.