Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Usefulness of pancreatic volume quantitative analysis as a predictor of development and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most common and serious adverse events associated with ERCP. Thus, we aimed to investigate the usefulness of pre-ERCP pancreatic volume, which is deeply involved in exocrine pancreatic function, as a predictor of PEP development and severity.

METHODS

In total, 1107 patients who underwent their first ERCP were recruited from January 2012 to December 2022 for this retrospective study. Pancreatic volume was measured by cross-sectional analysis using pre-ERCP computed tomography images. The potential risk factors for PEP were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of the 745 patients included in the study, 34 (4.6 %) developed PEP: severe, moderate, or mild PEP in 1, 7, and 26 cases, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that only a large pancreatic volume (>70 cm3) was an independent risk factor for the development of PEP (odds ratio, 7.98; 95 % confidence interval, 11.80-67.50; P < 0.001). Additionally, the incidence of PEP was significantly higher in patients with a pancreatic volume >70 cm3 than in those with a pancreatic volume ≤70 cm3 (18.5 % [31/168] vs. 0.5 % [3/577]; P < 0.001). Also, the association between the pre-ERCP pancreatic volume and PEP severity was positively correlated (r = 0.625, P < 0.005), with a larger pancreatic volume corresponding to increased PEP severity.

CONCLUSIONS

A large pancreatic volume before ERCP may be a novel risk factor for PEP incidence and severity. This finding suggests that quantitative analysis of the pre-ERCP pancreatic volume could be a useful predictor of PEP.

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.

The Relation between Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis and Different Cannulation Techniques: The Experience of a High-Volume Center from North-Eastern Romania

BACKGROUND

Despite numerous advances that have aimed to increase the safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) still remains a major issue. We aimed to assess the rate of PEP as well as the relation to the cannulation techniques in our unit, a high-volume center in north-eastern Romania.

METHODS

ERCPs performed in our unit from March to August 2022 were retrospectively included. Data concerning demographic information, presence of difficult cannulation, the technique used for cannulation, as well as immediate complications, were gathered from the electronic database.

RESULTS

233 ERCPs were included. PEP was diagnosed in 23 (9.9%) of cases. Precut sphincterotomy (PS), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPBS), and a combination of TPBS and PS were performed in 6.4%, 10.3%, and 1.7% of cases, respectively, while an Erlangen precut papillotomy was performed in one case. Both in patients with PS and TPBS the rate of PEP was 20%. When the two techniques were associated, the rate of PEP was 25%. TPBS and PS represented risk factors for PEP (OR 1.211 for a CI of 0.946-1.551, p = 0.041, and OR 1.124 for a CI of 0.928-1.361, p = 0.088, respectively). No PEP-associated deaths were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PS and TPBS presented a similar risk of PEP.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy contribute to the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction? A multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the necessity of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the incidence of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with or without ES in a multicenter prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We enrolled 807 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with a native papilla at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was compared for subgroups based on stent type, placement method, and patient background. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients.

RESULTS

Plastic and metal stents (MS) were inserted in 598 and 209 patients, respectively. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was 7.9% and 7.4%, respectively among all stenting patients. The incidences of PEP with or without ES in plastic stent insertion patients, patients with MS insertion, stent insertions across the papilla, stent insertions across the papilla in patients without main pancreatic duct obstruction, and fully covered MS insertions across the papilla were compared. There was no overall significant difference in the incidence of PEP between those with or without ES. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients revealed obstruction of the main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head and epinephrine spraying on the papilla were significant factors; there was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between patients with or without ES.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sphincterotomy may not contribute to the prevention of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction, even in cases of insertion with a fully covered MS across the papilla.

Multicenter prospective cohort study of adverse events associated with biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Incidence of adverse events and preventive measures for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The reported incidence of adverse events (AEs) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) varies between 2.5% and 14%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of AEs in biliary ERCP and to specify the risk factors and preventive measures for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Patients with biliary disease with intact papilla were prospectively enrolled at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 16,032 ERCP procedures were performed at the 36 hospitals during the study period and 3739 patients were enrolled. The overall incidence of AEs was 10.1% and ERCP-related mortality was 0.08%. PEP developed in 258 cases (6.9%), bleeding in 33 (0.9%), instrumental AEs in 17 (0.5%), infections in 37 (1.0%), cardiovascular AEs in eight (0.2%), pulmonary AEs in eight (0.2%), drug reaction AE in one (0.03%), pain in 15 (0.4%), and other AEs in 15 (0.4%). Multivariable analysis showed significant risk factors for PEP were: female of younger age, pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation, temporary guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, total procedure time >60 min, and post-ERCP administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Effective preventive measures were prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PPS) and epinephrine spraying onto the papilla.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with intact papilla who underwent biliary ERCP, the incidence of AEs was 10.1% and the mortality was 0.08%. PPS and epinephrine spraying may prevent PEP.

REGISTRATION

This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000024820).

Cooling the papilla with ice water in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (ice water challenge study)

BACKGROUND

The most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of cooling the papilla with iced water to reduce PEP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between December 2018 and July 2019, 100 consecutive patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP were prospectively enrolled in this study. In all patients, iced water was injected endoscopically toward the papilla via the working channel at the end of ERCP. The results were compared with 100 previous cases with native papilla that underwent ERCP under the same conditions without papilla cooling.

RESULTS

Although the difference was not significant, the incidence of PEP tended to be lower in the study group (4%) than in the control group (11%) (p = 0.060). In addition, the incidence of PEP was significantly reduced in patients who underwent biliary sphincterotomy (p = 0.033). All cases of PEP were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Cooling the papilla with iced water injection, which is safe, easy, and cheap might reduce PEP.

Randomized trial of high-dose rectal diclofenac suppository and epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

High-dose rectal diclofenac suppository and epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. We performed randomized trial to compare the effect of combination of rectal diclofenac and epinephrine spray on papilla (group A) vs. combination of rectal diclofenac with saline spray (group B) for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at tertiary care center from April 2018 to May 2020 on 882 patients with naive papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were randomly assigned to groups, A (n=437) or B (n=445). All patients received a single dose of rectal diclofenac 100 mg within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of diluted epinephrine 0.02% (group A) or saline (group B) was then sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in two groups.

RESULTS

The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 28 patients in group A (6.4%) and 35 patients in group B (7.9%) (relative risk, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.87-1.39; p=0.401).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that addition of epinephrine spray on duodenal papilla did not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. There is need for further studies to evaluate the role of different concentrations of epinephrine spray on papilla for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry- India (CTRI/2018/04/013396).

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is of one the most common gastroenterology-related indications for hospital admissions worldwide. With the widespread reliance on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of pancreaticobiliary conditions, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has come to represent an important etiology of acute pancreatitis. Despite many studies aiming to better understand the pathogenesis and prevention of this iatrogenic disorder, findings have been heterogeneous, and considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Herein, we review the literature regarding PEP with the goal to raise awareness of this entity, discuss recent data, and present evidence-based best practices. We believe this manuscript will be useful for gastrointestinal endoscopists as well as other specialists involved in the management of patients with PEP.

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).

Emerging Therapies to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review is to evaluate emerging, novel therapies for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis in low- and average-risk patients, who comprise the majority of patients undergoing ERCP. An 8-h protocol of aggressive lactated Ringer's reduces the risk of pancreatitis in average-risk patients. Sublingual nitrate may provide additional benefit to rectal NSAIDs in preventing PEP. A tacrolimus trough > 2.5 ng/mL was recently shown to be associated with a lower risk of PEP in liver transplant patients undergoing ERCP. Routine usage of rectal indomethacin in all patients undergoing ERCP reduces the risk of PEP. Pancreatic-duct stents reduce the risk of PEP in high-risk patients. There is emerging data that aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's and nitrates may further reduce PEP. Tacrolimus is a promising potential agent to prevent PEP but needs further clinical study.

Efficacy of Epinephrine Injection in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rectal indomethacin or a topical spray of epinephrine to the papilla of Vater has each shown efficacy alone in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). We supposed that a submucosal epinephrine injection would be more effective and longer acting than a topical epinephrine spray and therefore would further reduce the incidence of PEP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 412 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) between January 2017 and December 2019. These patients were divided into 2 groups: the indomethacin group and the indomethacin plus the submucosal epinephrine injection group. The incidence rates and severity of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, other outcomes, and any other adverse events were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and procedure-related parameters were similar between the 2 groups. The incidence of PEP was 0.4% in the epinephrine group compared with 5.1% in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Post-ERCP hyperamylasemia occurred in 24.6% of patients in the indomethacin group, whereas 7.6% of patients in the epinephrine group developed this condition; the difference was significant (P<0.001). Postsphincterotomy bleeding occurred in 5 patients, all of whom were in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Other adverse events, including arrhythmias, acute coronary events, stroke, or hypertension were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Addition of a submucosal epinephrine injection in conjunction with rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and postsphincterotomy bleeding.

Naproxen, isosorbide dinitrate and co-administration cannot prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Randomized controlled trial

Backgrounds/Aims

Acute pancreatitis is the most widespread complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Here, we investigated the efficacy of rectal suppository naproxen, sublingual isosorbide dinitrate and their co-administration in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial carried out from June 2015 to February 2016 at the Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center in Rasht, Iran. A total of 585 patients were selected from candidates for diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP by using the simple sampling method. Patients divided into three groups. Group A received 500 mg naproxen, group B took 5 mg isosorbide dinitrate, and group C was co-administrated both agents before ERCP. The primary outcome measure was the development of pancreatitis onset of pain in the upper abdomen and increase of serum amylase activity more than 3 times over the upper normal limit (60-100 IU/L) within first the 24 h post-ERCP.

Results

Totally, 80 patients developed PEP included 29 (4.9%), 24 (4.1%), and 27 (4.6%) patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p=0.845). Longer ERCP time (p=0.041), using diazepam (p=0.033), a higher number of pancreatic ducts cannulation (p<0.001), pancreatic duct injection (p=0.013), and using pancreatic stent (p=0.004) were the predisposing factors for PEP.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that prophylactic naproxen suppository or isosorbide dinitrate sublingually or co-administration had no significant difference in the prevention and severity of PEP, however, enhancing the endoscopist’s skills can be effective. Departments and educational hospitals should develop their assessment and quality assurance measures for the training of fellows’ not only technical training but also an understanding of the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of the procedure.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention using topical epinephrine: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Multiple drugs and techniques have been studied for the prevention of PEP. Topical epinephrine has shown mixed results and is still not widely accepted as an alternative for prevention of PEP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical epinephrine in preventing PEP. Methods  A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching Cochrane library database, Embase and PubMed up to August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for prevention of PEP. Outcomes included prevention of PEP with use of topical epinephrine and evaluation of whether addiing epinephrine provides any additional benefit in preventing PEP. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Results  Eight studies, including six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, RR = 0.63 (CI 0.32-1.24) with heterogeneity (I2 = 72 %). However, on a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine significantly decreases the risk of PEP when compared to placebo alone (means no intervention was done including no rectal indomethacin)., RR = 0.32 (0.18-0.57). In another subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in using topical epinephrine along with rectal indomethacin in preventing PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone RR = 0.87 (0.46-1.64). Conclusion  Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional benefit in preventing PEP when used in conjunction with rectal indomethacin. In subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine appeared to decrease risk of PEP in the absence of rectal indomethacin, and could be considered when rectal indomethacin is unavailable or if there is a contraindication to its use.

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.

A Randomized Trial of Topical Epinephrine and Rectal Indomethacin for Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION

Rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine have separately shown efficacy in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that the combination of indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine on the duodenal papillae would further reduce PEP than when indomethacin was used alone.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial of rectal indomethacin alone vs a combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP and the secondary outcome was the severity of PEP. A 2-tailed Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the difference in the proportion of patients with PEP in the indomethacin alone vs the combination group.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (mean age 52.33 ± 14.96 years; 551 [57.4%] females) were randomized and 959 completed follow-up. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Women <50 years of age (25.4%) and difficult cannulation (84.9%) were the most common PEP risk factors. The incidence of PEP was 6.4% in the indomethacin alone group (n = 482) compared to 6.7% in the combination group (n = 477; P = 0.87). Severe PEP was found in 5 (12%) and 7 (16%) patients in the indomethacin alone and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.88). The overall mortality was 0.6%, which was unrelated to the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine does not reduce the incidence of PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone in high-risk patients; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02116309.

Epinephrine in the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Preliminary Study

Background

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges between 15 and 20% among patients at high risk of developing PEP. The efficacy of indomethacin administration in the prevention of PEP is rather debatable. In the present randomized trial study, we evaluated whether or not the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine in comparison to the single administration of indomethacin differs in the pathogenesis and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Patients and Methods

One hundred and ninety-two patients were randomized in a double-blinded manner into 3 groups: the epinephrine group (group A), the indomethacin group (group B), and the combined epinephrine and indomethacin group (group C). After the procedure, patients were evaluated for the PEP development.

Results

During the procedure, 66 patients were randomized to the epinephrine group (group A), 68 cases to the indomethacin group (group B), and 58 individuals to the indomethacin-epinephrine group (group C). The mean age of patients in the epinephrine group was 59.59 ± 15.680 years, in the indomethacin group it was 58.06 ± 17.125 years, and in the combination group it was 59.62 ± 15.369 years. In the present study, we did not observe a significant difference between the 3 groups in sex, age, pre-ERCP amylase, lipase, and patient and procedure risk factors including pancreatic duct (PD) dilation (p = 0.404), PD cannulation (p = 0.329), and difficult cannulation (p = 0.076) among others. PEP developed in 7 of the 192 individuals (3.6%), 6 PEP cases occurred in the indomethacin group and 1 in the epinephrine group (p = 0.016). Univariate analysis of risk factors for PEP in patients with and without pancreatitis revealed no significant difference between the pancreatitis group and the non-pancreatitis group.

Conclusion

In comparison to the administration of indomethacin alone, a single application of epinephrine and the combination of epinephrine and indomethacin seem to be effective in reducing the cases of PEP. A further randomized clinical trial with a larger sample size is required to confirm the efficacy of our medication in the prevention of pancreatitis after ERCP.

Celecoxib Oral Administration for Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Randomized Prospective Trial

OBJECTIVES

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have reported promising prophylactic activity in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Conversely, cyclooxygenase-2 enzyme has been suggested to contribute to experimental acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of oral administration of celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, for the prevention of PEP.

METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized controlled study. Patients who were scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomized to receive either oral 400-mg celecoxib tablets 1 hour before ERCP and saline infusion (celecoxib group) or saline infusion only (control group). The primary outcome measure was the frequency of PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients were randomized; 85 patients each in the celecoxib group and control group were analyzed. After the procedure, 23 patients (13.5%) developed PEP. There was no difference in the frequency of PEP between the 2 groups (control group vs celecoxib group, 15.3% (13/85) vs 11.7% (10/85); P = 0.65). The severity of PEP, asymptomatic hyperamylasemia, and post-ERCP pain were not significantly different between the 2 groups. There were no adverse events related to celecoxib treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral administration of celecoxib had no beneficial preventive effect on PEP.

A Randomized Comparative Study of 24- and 6-Hour Infusion of Nafamostat Mesilate for the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although prolonged intravenous infusion (24 hours) of nafamostat mesilate is effective for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it requires hospitalization and is expensive. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 24- versus 6-hour intravenous infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 382 patients who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned into 2 groups: 24 hours or 6 hours. In both groups, nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) infusion was initiated up to an hour before ERCP and continued for either 24 or 6 hours.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 2.4% (9/371). The rates of PEP following 24- and 6-hour infusion were 2.8% (5/179) and 2.1% (4/192), respectively (P = 0.744). No significant difference was observed in the severity of pancreatitis between the groups. On multivariate analysis, increasing pancreatic duct cannulations (odds ratio, 1.685; 95% confidence interval, 1.036-2.741; P = 0.036) was identified as a statistically significant risk factor of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the incidence of PEP regardless of the duration of nafamostat mesilate infusion. Therefore, 6-hour infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate may be useful for the prevention of PEP in an outpatient setting.

Direct spraying of shakuyakukanzoto onto the duodenal papilla: a novel method for preventing pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Topical epinephrine application to the duodenal papilla reduces spasm of the sphincter of Oddi and prevents acute pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Shakuyakukanzoto (TJ-68) has an inhibitory effect on muscle contraction. Therefore, TJ-68 potentially allows the relaxation of the sphincter of Oddi, which can aid in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients planned for ERCP were divided into TJ-68 (n = 17) and control groups (n = 19). In the TJ-68 group, the TJ-68 solution was endoscopically sprayed directly onto the duodenal papilla of patients. To assess the effects of TJ-68, serum amylase levels were measured at 1 h and 1 day after ERCP and symptoms were evaluated.

RESULTS

The serum amylase levels at 1 h after ERCP were 273.6 ± 212.0 IU/l in the TJ-68 group and 428.7 ± 281.6 IU/l in the control group, showing a statistically significant difference (p = 0.036). The serum amylase levels at 24 h after ERCP were 230.0 ± 182.7 IU/l in the TJ-68 group and 497.4 ± 514.0 IU/l in the control group (p = 0.011). Post-ERCP pancreatitis was observed in 0 and 4 patients (21.1%) in the TJ-68 and control groups, respectively, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

Direct TJ-68 solution application to the duodenal papilla significantly inhibited the elevation of serum amylase levels. However, the preventive effect regarding post-ERCP pancreatitis was not confirmed in this study.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP.

SETTING

Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis.

PATIENTS

Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for "ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and "post-ERCP pancreatitis". in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.

A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrates to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent data suggest that indomethacin can reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk individuals. However, whether the combination of indomethacin and sublingual nitrates is superior to indomethacin alone is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rectally administered indomethacin plus sublingual nitrate compared with indomethacin alone to prevent PEP.

METHODS

During a 17-month period, all eligible patients who underwent ERCP were enrolled in this study. We excluded patients who had undergone a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy. In a double-blind controlled randomized trial, patients received a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus 5 mg of sublingual nitrate (group A), or a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus sublingual placebo (group B), before ERCP. Serum amylase levels and clinically pertinent evaluations were measured in all patients after ERCP.

RESULTS

Of the 300 enrolled patients, 150 received indomethacin plus nitrate. Thirty-three patients developed pancreatitis: 10 (6.7%) in group A and 23 (15.3%) in group B (P=0.016, risk ratio=0.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.18-0.86). More than 80% of the patients were at high risk of developing pancreatitis after ERCP. Absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat for the prevention of PEP were 8.6% (95% CI: 4.7-14.5), 56.2% (95% CI: 50.6-60.8), and 12 (95% CI: 7-22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrate given before ERCP was significantly more likely to reduce the incidence of PEP than indomethacin suppository alone. Multicenter trials to confirm these promising findings are needed.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for “ERCP” and “pancreatitis” and “post-ERCP pancreatitis”. in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of many pharmacological agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but it is unclear which agent(s) should be used in clinical practice. Network meta-analyses of RCTs are used to simultaneously compare several agents to determine their relative efficacy and identify priority agents for comparison in future RCTs.

AIM

To evaluate pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP by conducting a network meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of agents for preventing PEP. RCTs were simultaneously analysed using random-effects network meta-analysis under the Bayesian framework to identify the best agents. The efficacy of agents was ordered according to the probability of being ranked as any of the top three best performing agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 99 RCTs evaluating 16 agents in 25 313 patients. Topical epinephrine (adrenaline) was the most efficacious agent with 85.9% probability of ranking among the top three agents, followed by nafamostat (51.4%), antibiotics (44.5%) and NSAIDs (42.8%). However, in a sensitivity analysis including only rectal NSAIDs, NSAIDs moved from fourth rank to second (58.1%). Patients receiving topical epinephrine, compared with placebo, had a 75% reduced risk of PEP (OR 0.25, 95% probability interval 0.06-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical epinephrine and rectal NSAIDs are the most efficacious agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on existing RCTs. Combinations of these agents, which act on different steps in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, should be evaluated in future trials.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A variety of patient-related and procedure-related factors have been identified to risk-stratify patients. Several measures can be undertaken in order to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk groups. These measures include pancreatic duct stenting and rectal indomethacin, amongst others.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by epinephrine sprayed on the papilla

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla may reduce papillary edema and prevent acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of localized irrigation with epinephrine saline for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 941 patients who were scheduled for ERCP were recruited into this study. We randomized the patients to have 20 mL of either 0.02% epinephrine or saline sprayed on the papilla after diagnostic ERCP to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. We recorded duct visualization, presence of pancreatic acinarization, number of injections into the pancreatic duct, total volume of contrast used, and procedure duration. The serum amylase levels were measured at 6, 24 and 48 h after ERCP. We counted the patients of PEPs and compared whether there was significant difference between the pancreatitis group and the no pancreatitis group.

RESULTS

A univariate analysis of the explanatory variables between the epinephrine and control groups, the pancreatitis and no pancreatitis groups revealed the treatment to be effective, but most of the groups were not statistically significant. PEPs occurred in 40 of the 941 patients (4.25%), the incidence of pancreatitis tended to be higher in the control group (31/480, 6.45%) than in the epinephrine group (9/461, 1.95%) (P = 0.0086).

CONCLUSIONS

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla may be effective to prevent PEP. Female patients (aged ≥ 18 years and < 35 years) (7/40, 17.5%), common bile duct diameter < 10 mm (27/40, 67.5%), previous cholangitis (3/40, 7.5%), body mass index ≥ 24 (22/40, 55%), and/or serum triglycerides ≥ 5.65 mmol/L (6/40, 15%), might be risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, but are not statistically significant in the study.

Prophylactic injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine oral to the papilla for prevention of postsphincterotomy bleeding

GOALS/BACKGROUND

Endoscopic injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine (HSE) solution oral to the papilla effectively arrests uncontrolled bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a prophylactic injection of HSE solution oral to the papilla before ES for prevention of post-ES bleeding.

STUDY

Patients scheduled for ES were recruited into this study. Before ES, patients randomly underwent a single submucosal injection of HSE solution (1 mL) 1 to 2-cm oral to the papilla (injection group) or no injection (noninjection group). After ES, patients were prospectively evaluated for occurrence of post-ES complications such as bleeding, perforation, and pancreatitis between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were randomized to the injection group (n=60) or the noninjection group (n=60). The 2 groups were similar with respect to all background variables. Bleeding occurred in 10 patients (8.3%), and the incidence of bleeding was significantly higher in the noninjection group (9/60) than in the injection group (1/60) (P=0.017). Retroperitoneal perforation occurred in 1 patient (injection group) (0.83%). Pancreatitis occurred in 10 patients (8.3%), and the incidence of pancreatitis tended to be higher in the noninjection group (8/60) than in the injection group (2/60) (P=0.095).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic injection of HSE solution oral to the papilla before ES is a simple and inexpensive method, and is effective for prevention of post-ES bleeding.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated pancreatitis: A 15-year review

The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We searched for and evaluated all articles describing the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, morbidity, mortality and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in adult patients using the PubMed database. Search terms included endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, ampulla of vater, endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilatation, cholangiography, adverse events, standards and utilization. We limited our review of articles to those published between January 1, 1994 and August 15, 2009 regarding human adults and written in the English language. Publications from the reference sections were reviewed and included if they were salient and fell into the time period of interest. Between the dates queried, seventeen large (> 500 patients) prospective and four large retrospective trials were conducted. PEP occurred in 1%-15% in the prospective trials and in 1%-4% in the retrospective trials. PEP was also reduced with pancreatic duct stent placement and outcomes were improved with endoscopic sphincterotomy compared to balloon sphincter dilation in the setting of choledocholithiasis. Approximately 34 pharmacologic agents have been evaluated for the prevention of PEP over the last fifteen years in 63 trials. Although 22 of 63 trials published during our period of review suggested a reduction in PEP, no pharmacologic therapy has been widely accepted in clinical use in decreasing the development of PEP. In conclusion, PEP is a well-recognized complication of ERCP. Medical treatment for prevention has been disappointing. Proper patient selection and pancreatic duct stenting have been shown to reduce the complication rate in randomized clinical trials.