A meta-analysis on the role of rectal diclofenac and indomethacin in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Comparative study of strategies for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis after early precut sphincterotomy for biliary access

OBJECTIVE

Needle knife precut sphincterotomy (PS) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been associated with a high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This study aimed to examine the effect of no prophylaxis, somatostatin, rectal diclofenac and pancreatic duct (PD) stenting in reducing rates of PEP in patients who underwent early PS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective comparative study and the study period was from January 2006 to December 2015. A standardized approach to early PS was used: (i) inadvertent guidewire cannulation of the PD > thrice; (ii) impacted bile duct stone; (iii) inability to achieve deep cannulation within 10 min. PEP prophylactic measures included: (i) none when there was minimal papilla trauma; (ii) somatostatin infusion; (iii) rectal diclofenac; (iv) PD stent. The difference in rates of PEP between the different strategies was analysed.

RESULTS

During the study period, PS was performed in 191 ERCP patients (mean age 66 years; 56.5% males). The ERCP success rate after PS was 93.2% (178/191). Overall the PEP rate was 3.1% (6/191) and the severity in all cases was mild. PEP occurred in 6.1% of patients with PD cannulation but not in those without (P = 0.016). PEP rates were 1.8%, 7.3%, 1.8% and 0% in control, somatostatin, diclofenac and PD stenting groups, respectively (P = 0.209).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in PEP rates after early PS whether or not prophylactic measures were adopted if there was minimal papilla trauma. A trend towards lower PEP rates was observed in patients who had either rectal diclofenac or PD stenting, compared to somatostatin.

Prophylaxis of pancreatitis with intravenous ketoprofen in a consecutive population of ERCP patients: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial

Background Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication after ERCP, occurring in about 4 % of the procedures. Only the placement of pancreatic duct prosthesis and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have shown benefit in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Although the benefit of rectal administration of indomethacin or diclofenac is recommended by some studies and society guidelines especially in a selected group of high-risk patients, there is so far, no standardization of time or route of NSAID administration. The aim of the current study is to investigate the role of an intravenous NSAID administered before the procedure for PEP prevention. Methods In this randomized double-blind clinical trial, all consecutive patients who underwent ERCP were randomized to receive saline infusion with ketoprofen or saline, immediately before the procedure. Results A total of 477 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (72.1 %) had bile duct stones, and only 1.5 % had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. PEP developed in 5 of 253 (2 %) patients in the placebo group and in 5 of 224 (2.2 %) patients in the ketoprofen group (p = 1.). Conclusions Intravenous administration of ketoprofen immediately prior to ERCP did not result in reduction in PEP in a general population of ERCP patients.

Rectal Indomethacin Reduces Pancreatitis in High- and Low-Risk Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Most studies of its efficacy included high-risk cohorts and excluded low-risk patients, including those with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the potential of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a variety of patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 4017 patients who underwent ERCP at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, from 2009 and 2015, including 823 patients with malignant biliary obstruction. After June 2012, with a few exceptions, patients received indomethacin after their procedure. We collected data from patients' records on demographic and clinical features, procedures, and development of PEP. PEP was defined by consensus criteria. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between indomethacin and PEP.

RESULTS

Rectal indomethacin reduced the odds of PEP by 65% (OR, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.51; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 83% (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P < .001). In patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin reduced the risk of PEP by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 80% (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P < .001). Among patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin provided the greatest benefit to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: 2.31% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed PEP vs 7.53% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P < .001) and 0.59% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed moderate-to-severe PEP vs 4.32% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP that included low-risk patients and patients with malignant biliary obstruction, rectal indomethacin was associated with a significant decrease in the absolute rate and severity of pancreatitis.

Suppository naproxen reduces incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Randomized controlled trial

AIM: To determine the efficacy of rectally administered naproxen for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS: This double-blind randomized control trial conducted from January 2013 to April 2014 at the Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center in Rasht, Iran. A total of 324 patients were selected from candidates for diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP by using the simple sampling method. Patients received a single dose of Naproxen (500 mg; n = 162) or a placebo (n = 162) per rectum immediately before ERCP. The overall incidence of PEP, incidence of mild to severe PEP, serum amylase levels and adverse effects were measured. The primary outcome measure was the development of pancreatitis onset of pain in the upper abdomen and elevation of the serum amylase level to > 3 × the upper normal limit (60-100 IU/L) within 24 h after ERCP. The severity of PEP was classified according to the duration of therapeutic intervention for PEP: mild, 2-3 d; moderate 4-10 d; and severe, > 10 d and/or necessitated surgical or intensive treatment, or contributed to death.

RESULTS: PEP occurred in 12% (40/324) of participants, and was significantly more frequent in the placebo group compared to the naproxen group (P < 0.01). Of the participants, 25.9% (84/324) developed hyperamylasemia within 2 h of procedure completion, among whom only 35 cases belonged to the naproxen group (P < 0.01). The incidence of PEP was significantly higher in female sex, in patients receiving pancreatic duct injection, more than 3 times pancreatic duct cannulations, and ERCP duration more than 40 min (Ps < 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the procedures or factors that might increase the risk of PEP, sphincterotomy, precut requirement, biliary duct injection and number of pancreatic duct cannulations. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic duct injection, the rate of pancreatitis in the naproxen group was significantly lower than that in the placebo (6 patients vs 23 patients, P < 0.01, RRR = 12%, AR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.6). Naproxen reduced the PEP in patients with ≥ 3 pancreatic cannulations (P < 0.01, RRR = 25%, AR = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1-0.4) and an ERCP duration > 40 min (P < 0.01, RRR = 20%, AR = 0.9, 95%CI: 0.4-1.2).

CONCLUSION: Single dose of suppository naproxen administered immediately before ERCP reduces the incidence of PEP.

Routine pre-procedural rectal indometacin versus selective post-procedural rectal indometacin to prevent pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rectal indometacin decreases the occurrence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the population most at risk and the optimal timing of administration require further investigation. We aimed to assess whether pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in all patients is more effective than post-procedural use in only high-risk patients to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at six centres in China. Eligible patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (with a computer-generated list) to universal pre-procedural indometacin or post-procedural indometacin in only high-risk patients, with stratification by trial centres and block size of ten. In the universal indometacin group, all patients received a single dose (100 mg) of rectal indometacin within 30 min before ERCP. In the risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin group, only patients at predicted high risk received rectal indometacin, immediately after ERCP. Investigators, but not patients, were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was overall ocurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02002650.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 15, 2013, and Sept 21, 2015, 2600 patients were randomly assigned to universal, pre-procedural indometacin (n=1297) or risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin (n=1303). Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 47 (4%) of 1297 patients assigned to universal indometacin and 100 (8%) of 1303 patients assigned to risk-stratified indometacin (relative risk 0·47; 95% CI 0·34-0·66; p<0·0001). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 18 (6%) of 305 high-risk patients in the universal group and 35 (12%) of 281 high-risk patients in the risk-stratified group (p=0·0057). Post-ERCP pancreatitis was also less frequent in average-risk patients in the universal group (3% [29/992]), in which they received indometacin, than in the risk-stratified group (6% [65/1022]), in which they did not receive the drug (p=0·0003). Other than pancreatitis, adverse events occurred in 41 (3%; two severe) patients in the universal indometacin group and 48 (4%; one severe) patients in the risk-stratified group. The most common adverse events were biliary infection (22 [2%] patients vs 33 [3%] patients) and gastrointestinal bleeding (13 [1%] vs ten [1%]).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with a risk-stratified, post-procedural strategy, pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in unselected patients reduced the overall occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis without increasing risk of bleeding. Our results favour the routine use of rectal indometacin in patients without contraindications before ERCP.

FUNDING

National Key Technology R&D Program, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Rectal Indomethacin Does Not Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is given to prevent pancreatitis in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines recently recommended prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis. We performed a randomized controlled trail to investigate the efficacy of this approach.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2013 through December 2014. Approximately 70% of the cohort were at average risk for PEP. Subjects were assigned randomly to groups given either a single 100-mg dose of rectal indomethacin (n = 223) or a placebo suppository (n = 226) during the procedure. The primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal pain, a lipase level more than 3-fold the upper limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the groups in baseline clinical or procedural characteristics. Sixteen patients in the indomethacin group (7.2%) and 11 in the placebo group (4.9%) developed PEP (P = .33). Complications and the severity of PEP were similar between groups. Per a priori protocol guidelines, the study was stopped owing to futility.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT01774604.

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP.

Methods/Design

The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked.

Discussion

The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough.

Trial registration

NCT02476279, registered June 2015.

Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Advances in risk-stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and discusses timely research questions in this important area.

A Novel Round Insulated Tip Papillotome as an Alternative to the Classic Needle-Knife for Precut Sphincterotomy in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a new round insulated tip papillotome (r-ITP) as compared to that of the classic needle-knife sphincterotome (NKS) in difficult-to-cannulate endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) patients. Materials and Methods. Patients with no exclusion criteria and an intact papilla referred for ERCP were invited to participate in the study. “Difficult-to-cannulate” patients, defined as failure to achieve deep biliary cannulation within five minutes from the first touch of papilla, with no more than ten attempts permitted, were randomly assigned for precut sphincterotomy using either the classic NKS or r-ITP. Results. Seventy and 69 patients were randomly assigned to the NKS and r-ITP groups, respectively. The groups were comparable regarding age, sex, indications, and associated conditions. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of successful cannulation or post-ERCP complications between the two groups. Only five patients (3.6%) developed mild to moderate post-ERCP pancreatitis and two had mild bleeding. No perforations or deaths were encountered. Conclusions. Although the round insulated tip papillotome was not shown to be superior to the classic NKS concerning efficacy and safety when used by an experienced endoscopist, it remains a simple, safe, and efficacious alternative.

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

Background

Acute pancreatitis is the most common major complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many drugs have been evaluated for prophylaxis, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which are potent inhibitors of phospholipase A₂ and play a role in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs have been shown in prospective studies to decrease the incidence of this complication, but the indication is not generalized in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of rectal administration of indomethacin in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Methods

This was a controlled clinical trial where patients with an elevated risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis were assigned to receive 100 mg of rectal indomethacin or a 2.6 g suppository of glycerin immediately after ERCP, without placement of a pancreatic stent. The patients were determined to be at high risk based on validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as the presence of new upper abdominal pain, hyperamylasemia/hyperlipasemia (at least three times the upper limit) 2 hours after the procedure and hospitalization at least 48 hours because of the complication. Pancreatitis severity was defined according to Cotton’s criteria.

Results

One hundred sixty-six patients were included; 82 in the study group and 84 in the placebo group. Patients had at least one major and/or two minor risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The incidence of the complication was 4.87 % (4/82) in the study group and 20.23 % (17/84) in the placebo group; this difference was significant (P = 0.01). According to Cotton’s criteria, 17 patients (80.9 %) developed mild pancreatitis and 4 (19.1 %) had moderate pancreatitis; 3 of these 4 patients belonged to the placebo group (P = 0.60). Based on these results, an absolute risk reduction of 0.15 (15 %), a relative risk reduction of 0.75 (75 %) and a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients were calculated to prevent an episode of post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

Rectal indomethacin reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients at high risk of developing this complication.

Trial registration

National Clinical Trials NCT02110810. Date April 7, 2014.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost.

RESULTS

After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis from direct pancreatic juice collection in hereditary pancreatitis and familial pancreatic cancer before and after the introduction of prophylactic pancreatic stents and rectal diclofenac

OBJECTIVES

Individuals from hereditary pancreatitis (HP) and familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds are at increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Premalignant molecular changes may be detected in pancreatic juice collected by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The objective was to determine the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A prospective study (1999-2013) was undertaken of 80 ERCPs (24 in HP and 56 in FPC) from 60 individuals and the impact of PEP prophylaxis using a self-expelling pancreatic stent and 50 mg diclofenac per rectum from 2008.

RESULTS

There was no PEP in the HP cohort and 13 (23.2%) PEP from 56 procedures in the FPC cohort (P = 0.0077). Up to 2008 PEP had occurred in 7 (43.8%) of 16 procedures in FPC individuals versus none of 18 procedures in HP individuals (P = 0.0021). After the introduction of prophylaxis, the incidence of PEP fell to 6 (15.0%) of 40 procedures in FPC individuals (P = 0.0347).The odds ratio (95% confidence interval) was 0.23 (0.06-0.84) in favor of prophylaxis (0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with HP are at minimal risk for PEP. Although the risk of PEP in individuals with FPC can be reduced by using prophylactic self-expelling stents and diclofenac, it remains too high for routine screening.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events: general overview

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) represents a monumental advance in the management of patients with pancreaticobiliary diseases, but is a complex and technically demanding procedure with the highest inherent risk of adverse events of all routine endoscopic procedures. Overall adverse event rates for ERCP are typically reported as 5-10%. The most commonly reported adverse events include post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, infection (cholangitis), and cardiopulomary or "sedation related" events. This article evaluates patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for ERCP-related adverse events, and discusses strategies for the prevention, diagnosis and management of these events.

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement

BACKGROUND

It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.

SETTING

University of Michigan and Indiana University.

PATIENTS

A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS, patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To define the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort.

RESULTS

The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, significantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured.

CONCLUSION

FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These findings highlight the importance of adequate training and proficiency before endoscopists attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events: post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and not uncommonly is the reason behind ERCP-related lawsuits. Patients at high risk for PEP include young women with abdominal pain, normal liver tests, and unremarkable imaging. Procedure-related factors include traumatic and persistent cannulation attempts, multiple injections of the pancreatic duct, pancreatic sphincterotomy, and, possibly, use of precut sphincterotomy. Aggressive hydration, use of rectal indomethacin, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting can diminish the risk (and likely severity) of PEP. Though hugely beneficial, these measures do not supersede careful patient selection and technique.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis remains the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is reported to occur in 2–10% of unselected patient samples and up to 40% of high-risk patients. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence behind the known risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as the technical and medical approaches developed to prevent it. There have been many advances in identifying the causes of this condition. Based on this knowledge, a variety of preventive strategies have been developed and studied. The approach to prevention begins with careful patient selection and performing ERCP for specific indications, while considering alternative diagnostic modalities when appropriate. Patients should also be classified by high-risk factors such as young age, female sex, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, a history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and normal serum bilirubin, all of which have been identified in numerous research studies. The pathways of injury that are believed to cause post-ERCP pancreatitis eventually lead to the common endpoint of inflammation, and these individual steps can be targeted for preventive therapies through procedural techniques and medical management. This includes the use of a guide wire for cannulation, minimizing the number of cannulation attempts, avoiding contrast injections or trauma to the pancreatic duct, and placement of a temporary pancreatic duct stent in high-risk patients. Administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) in high-risk patients is the proven pharmacological measure for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The evidence for or against numerous other attempted therapies is still unclear, and ongoing investigation is required.

Complications of ERCP for choledocholithiasis in a sickle cell cohort

Background

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) demand special attention during clinical interventions because they are predisposed to acute chest syndrome (ACS), vaso-occlusive crises, intra-vascular haemolysis and immune paresis. Although SCD is endemic in the Caribbean, there has been no report on endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) outcomes in these patients from this region.

Study

The records of patients with SCD who underwent ERCP between 1 January 2005 and 1 June 2010 were analysed retrospectively. Parameters assessed included patient demographics, procedural details, ERCP-related and SCD-related morbidity. Data were analysed using SPSS version 12.0.

Results

Fifty-four patients with SCD were subjected to ERCP during the study period. There were 37 women and 17 men at a mean age of 28 years (SD +/−12.05). There was 29% (16) overall morbidity, with 10 (18.5%) SCD-related complications and six (11.1%) ERCP-specific complications. More common complications were: pancreatitis (9.3%); cholangitis (1.9%); ACS (9.3%); pneumonia (3.7%); and painful crises (5.6%). There was one death (1.9%) due to multiple organ failure secondary to severe pancreatitis.

Conclusions

This study suggests that the SCD cohort requires special perioperative attention to minimise the inordinately high morbidity, many of which are SCD-related. We propose a perioperative management protocol that may minimise morbidity in these patients.