The safety and utility of prophylactic pancreatic duct stents in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an analysis of practice in a single UK tertiary referral center. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:1923-1928. [PMID: 20112114 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0875-7]

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.

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.

Precut sphincterotomy: efficacy for ductal access and the risk of adverse events

BACKGROUND

Successful ductal access is achieved in 90% of patients who undergo ERCP. Precut sphincterotomy has been advocated when routine cannulation is not possible.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of precut sphincterotomy for ductal access and the risk of adverse events including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) associated with it.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of ERCP procedures performed from 2002 to 2011.

SETTING

Referral center.

PATIENTS

A total of 10,202 consecutive patients who underwent native cannulation ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Efficacy for ductal access and risk of adverse events including PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 706 patients required precut sphincterotomy, 614 of whom (86.9%) had successful biliary cannulation. PEP was diagnosed in 58 (8.2 %), perforation in 6 (0.8%), and bleeding in 49 (6.9%) patients. On multivariate analysis, unsuccessful precut sphincterotomy (odds ratio [OR] 2.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-4.40; P < .001) and female sex (OR 1.95; 95% CI, 1.23-3.07; P = .004) were associated with increased risk of the development of adverse events. Female sex (OR 2.42; 95% CI, 1.29-4.55; P = .006) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR 2.77; 95% CI, 1.16-6.60; P = .02) were associated with an increased risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Precut sphincterotomy is effective in achieving ductal access when standard cannulation techniques fail. A successful precut sphincterotomy is not associated with an increased risk of adverse events.

Randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stenting to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM: To determine the effectiveness of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high risk patients.

METHODS: Authors conducted a single-blind, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent against post-ERCP pancreatitis, including rates of spontaneous dislodgement and complications. Authors defined high risk patients as having any of the following: sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, difficult cannulation, prior history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, pre-cut sphincterotomy, pancreatic ductal biopsy, pancreatic sphincterotomy, intraductal ultrasonography, or a procedure time of more than 30 min. Patients were randomized to a stent group (n = 60) or to a non-stent group (n = 60). An abdominal radiograph was obtained daily to assess spontaneous stent dislodgement. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed according to consensus criteria.

RESULTS: The mean age (± standard deviation) was 67.4 ± 13.8 years and the male: female ratio was 68:52. In the stent group, the mean age was 66 ± 13 years and the male: female ratio was 33:27, and in the non-stent group, the mean age was 68 ± 14 years and the male: female ratio was 35:25. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, gender, final diagnosis, or type of endoscopic intervention. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in PD stent and non-stent groups was 1.7% (1/60) and 13.3% (8/60), respectively. The severity of pancreatitis was mild in all cases. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the stent group was significantly lower than in the non-stent group (P = 0.032, Fisher’s exact test). The rate of hyperamylasemia were 30% (18/60) and 38.3% (23 of 60) in the stent and non-stent groups, respectively (P = 0.05, χ² test). The placement of a PD stent was successful in all 60 patients. The rate of spontaneous dislodgement by the third day was 96.7% (58/60), and the median (range) time to dislodgement was 2.1 (2-3) d. The rates of stent migration, hemorrhage, perforation, infection (cholangitis or cholecystitis) or other complicationss were 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), 0% (0/60), respectively, in the stent group. Univariate analysis revealed no significant differences in high risk factors between the two groups. The pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent safely prevented post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients.

CONCLUSION: Pancreatic stent placement is a safe and effective technique to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Therefore authors recommend pancreatic stent placement after ERCP in high risk patients.