Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

NSAIDs do not reduce severity among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients

OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.

DESIGN

A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.

RESULTS

7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.

External use of mirabilite to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in children: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Currently, there is no suitable treatment for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis. Few studies have prospectively evaluated interventions to prevent PEP in children.

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of the external use of mirabilite to prevent PEP in children.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled patients with chronic pancreatitis scheduled for ERCP according to eligibility criteria. Patients were randomly divided into the external use of mirabilite group (external use of mirabilite in a bag on the projected abdominal area within 30 min before ERCP) and blank group. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. The secondary outcomes included the severity of PEP, abdominal pain scores, levels of serum inflammatory markers [tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and serum interleukin-10 (IL-10)], and intestinal barrier function markers [diamine oxidase (DAO), D-lactic acid, and endotoxin]. Additionally, the side effects of topical mirabilite were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 234 patients were enrolled, including 117 in the external use of mirabilite group and the other 117 in the blank group. The pre-procedure and procedure-related factors were not significantly different between the two groups. The incidence of PEP in the external use of mirabilite group was significantly lower than that in the blank group (7.7% vs 26.5%, P < 0.001). The severity of PEP decreased in the mirabilite group (P = 0.023). At 24 h after the procedure, the visual analog scale score in the external use of mirabilite group was lower than that in the blank group (P = 0.001). Compared with those in the blank group, the TNF-α expressions were significantly lower and the IL-10 expressions were significantly higher at 24 h after the procedure in the external use of mirabilite group (P = 0.032 and P = 0.011, respectively). There were no significant differences in serum DAO, D-lactic acid, and endotoxin levels before and after ERCP between the two groups. No adverse effects of mirabilite were observed.

CONCLUSION

External use of mirabilite reduced the PEP occurrence. It significantly alleviated post-procedural pain and reduced inflammatory response. Our results favor the external use of mirabilite to prevent PEP in children.

Effect of Adding Intravenous Somatostatin to Rectal Indomethacin on Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients: A Double-blind Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has an important role in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary disorders.

GOALS

Considering the high prevalence and importance of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and the controversial findings, we aimed to determine the effect of adding intravenous somatostatin to rectal indomethacin on the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients.

STUDY

In this prospective study, 530 patients underwent ERCP during March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. The intervention group received a bolus injection of 250 μg somatostatin followed by an infusion of 500 μg of somatostatin for 2 hours. In both groups, 100 mg of pre-ERCP suppository indomethacin was administrated. All patients were screened for PEP symptoms and signs for 24 hours after ERCP (Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials code: IRCT20080921001264N11).

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were finally analyzed. PEP was the most common adverse event with 50 (13.2%) episodes, including 21 (5.5%) mild, 23 (6.1%) moderate, and 6 (1.2%) severe. The rate of PEP was 15.2% in the control group and 11.4% in the intervention group ( P =0.666). The incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia was 21.7% in the control group and 18.2% in the intervention group ( P =0.395). No death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study administration of somatostatin plus indomethacin could safely reduce the rate of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and PEP in the intervention group compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: current strategies and novel perspectives

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure that might lead to severe adverse events. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common post-procedural complication, which is related to significant mortality and increasing healthcare costs. Up to now, the prevalent approach to prevent PEP consisted of employing pharmacological and technical expedients that have been shown to improve post-ERCP outcomes, such as the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aggressive intravenous hydration, and the placement of a pancreatic stent. However, it has been reported that PEP originates from a more complex interaction of procedural and patient-related factors. Appropriate ERCP training has a pivotal role in PEP prevention strategy, and it is not a chance that a low PEP rate is universally considered one of the most relevant indicators of proficiency in ERCP. Scant data on the acquisition of skills during the ERCP training are currently available, although some efforts have been recently done to shorten the learning curve by way of simulation-based training and demonstrate competency by meeting technical requirements as well as adopting skill evaluation scales. Besides, the identification of adequate indications for ERCP and accurate pre-procedural risk stratification of patients might help to reduce PEP occurrence regardless of the endoscopist's technical abilities, and generally preserve safety in ERCP. This review aims at delineating current preventive strategies and highlighting novel perspectives for a safer ERCP focusing on the prevention of PEP.

Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Using Temporary Pancreatic Stents Versus Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Both pancreatic stenting and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The aim of the study was to compare post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis using pancreatic stents and/or rectal NSAIDs prospectively.

METHODS

A total of 321 patients undergoing ERCP were studied. Each patient was randomly allocated to receive pancreatic stent placement (PS), 50 mg of rectal diclofenac (NSAID), or both (PS + NSAID) for PEP prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the occurrence rate of PEP, and secondary outcomes included the severity of PEP and serum pancreatic amylase and lipase levels on the day after ERCP.

RESULTS

Five patients (PS: 2/101, NSAID: 1/106, PS + NSAID: 2/102) developed PEP, and the overall occurrence rate of PEP was 1.6% (5/309). The occurrence rates of PEP in the PS, NSAID, and PS + NSAID groups were statistically equivalent with an equivalent margin of 10%. The severity of PEP was mild in all 5 patients. Median serum pancreatic amylase and lipase levels in the NSAID group were significantly lower than those in the PS and PS + NSAID groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal administration of 50 mg of diclofenac may become a first-line therapy for PEP prophylaxis in our country.

Optimal timing of rectal diclofenac in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients and methods  We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance. Results  We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P  = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P  = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P  = 0.002). Conclusions  Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use.

Combined use of indomethacin and hydration is the best conservative approach for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a life-threatening complication. Given the lack of a causative treatment for pancreatitis, it is of vital importance to minimize this risk of PEP. Multi-target preventive therapy may be the best choice for PEP prevention as disease development is multifactorial.

AIM

We aimed to assess the efficacy of a combination of indomethacin and hydration - type and amount - for PEP prevention via a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Through a systematic search in three databases, we searched all randomized controlled trials involving hydration and indomethacin and ranked the PEP preventive efficacy with a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guideline. The RoB2 tool was used for risk of bias assessment, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for ranking and PROSPERO for the study protocol [reg. no. CRD42018112698]. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

RESULTS

The quantitative analysis included 7559 patients from 24 randomized controlled trials. Based on the SUCRA values, a combination of lactated Ringer's and indomethacin is more effective than single therapy with a 94% certainty. The percent relative risk ratios estimate preventive efficacy 70-99% higher for combinations than single therapies. Aggressive hydration with indomethacin (SUCRA 100%) is also significantly more effective than all other interventions (percent relative effect 94.3-98.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

A one-hit-on-each-target therapeutic approach is recommended in PEP prevention with an easily accessible combination of indomethacin and aggressive hydration for all average and high-risk patients without contraindication.

Is the Combination of Rectal Diclofenac and Intravenous Ringer Lactate Superior to Individual Therapy for Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Open-Label, Single-Center Randomized Trial

METHODS

This was single-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients who were undergoing ERCP and who were at high risk for the development of PEP were selected for the study. Patients were randomized into 3 treatment groups: diclofenac suppository group, RL group, and a combination group.

RESULTS

Eight of 57 patients (14.03%) in the diclofenac group, 9 of 57 patients (15.78%) in the RL group, and 6 of 57 patients (10.52%) in the combination group developed PEP. The incidence of PEP between the three groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.70). Serum amylase level of >252 U/L had 91.3% sensitivity and 92.6% specificity for the diagnosis of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis is usually mild to moderate 95% times. Female sex, age younger than 50 years, a benign indication of ERCP, and low bilirubin levels have higher chances of PEP. A combination of rectal diclofenac and hydration with RL does not offer better protection for PEP, as compared with individual prophylaxis.

Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: How to Tackle the Difficult Papilla

BACKGROUND

In the setting of a naïve papilla, biliary cannulation is a key step in successfully performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. Difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) is associated with an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and failure of the whole procedure.

SUMMARY

Recommendations for biliary cannulation can be divided into (a) measures to reduce the likelihood of a difficult papilla situation a priori and (b) rescue techniques in case the endoscopist is actually facing DBC. (a) Careful inspection of the papillary anatomy and optimizing its accessibility by scope positioning is fundamental. A sphincterotome in combination with a soft-tip hydrophilic guidewire rather than a standard catheter with a standard guidewire should be used in most situations. (b) The most important rescue techniques are needle-knife precut, double-guidewire technique, and transpancreatic sphincterotomy. In few cases, anterograde cannulation techniques are needed. To this regard, the EUS-guided biliary drainage followed by rendezvous is increasingly used as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Key Messages: Biliary cannulation can be accomplished with alternative retrograde or less frequently by salvage anterograde techniques, once conventional direct cannulation attempts have failed. Considering recent favorable data for the early use of transpancreatic sphincterotomy, an adopted version of the 2016 European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) algorithm on biliary cannulation is proposed.

Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: An Updated Review of Current Preventive Strategies

Pancreatitis is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with incidence rates as high as 16% in some centers. Recent studies have also shown an upward trend in hospitalization due to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related pancreatitis. Early interventions taken before, during, and after the procedure can significantly reduce the risk of pancreatitis and decrease morbidity and mortality of the patients. To select appropriate patients for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, in-depth knowledge of the patient-related and procedure-related risk factors is required. This updated clinical review outlines various pharmacological agents and surgical methods used for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Current evidence supports the use of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stent placement as an effective preventive strategy. Further research is needed to compare these preventive modalities to improve patient outcomes after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

100 mg rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic stents both significantly reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparison of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between them in high-risk patients is absent. We conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacies of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients and help us decide which is preferred in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was done to identify RCTs published in English full-text. Interventions included 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) and pancreatic stents. Only studies with high-risk patients of PEP were included. Meta-analyses of NSAIDs and pancreatic stents were conducted respectively. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian method was performed.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, 8 on pancreatic stents and 6 on 100 mg rectal NSAIDs in high-risk patients. There was no direct comparison between them. After excluding an outlier study on NSAIDs (n = 144), meta-analyses showed they both significantly and statistically reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients (pancreatic stents: n = 8 studies, random-effects risk ratio (RR)0.41, 95%CI 0.30-0.56, I = 0%; NSAIDs: n = 5 studies, random-effects RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.25-0.54, I = 0%). And network meta-analysis showed efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs was equal to pancreatic stents (random-effects RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.50-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) seems equally significant to pancreatic stents in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. Considering the cost-effectiveness and safety, 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin may be preferred.

Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Risk factors and role of NSAIDs in primary prophylaxis

Objective:

To determine efficacy of diclofenac suppository in reducing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and identify risk factors for PEP.

Methods:

This is a placebo-based prospective study at Department of Medicine & Gastroenterology, Services Institute of Medical Sciences / Services Hospital, Lahore performed from January 2018 to June 2019. Patients were randomized to receive diclofenac suppository or glycerine suppository before ERCP. Both groups were compared for PEP using chi square x² test while risk factors for PEP were determined using binary logistic regression.

Results:

Total of 165 patients with mean age 49.1(±15.2) and male to female ratio 1/1.6 (63/102) were included. Among 82 (49.7%) patients in diclofenac group, 8 (9.7%) developed pancreatitis while 19(22.9%) of 83(50.3%) in placebo group had PEP (p value 0.02). After multivariate analysis, age>45 years (p value 0.014, OR 3.2), Bilirubin >3 mg/dl (p value 0.004 OR 3.58), time to cannulation> 5 minutes (p value<0.000 OR 9.2), use of precut (p value< 0.000 OR 4.9), pancreatic duct cannulation (p value 0.000 OR 5.46) and total procedure time >30 minutes (p value 0.01 OR 3.92) were risk factors for PEP.

Conclusion:

Pre-procedure Diclofenac suppository reduces post-ERCP pancreatitis. Age > 45 years, serum bilirubin > 3 mg/dl, cannulation time > 5 minutes, use of precut, pancreatic duct cannulation and procedure time > 30 minutes are risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Rectal indometacin dose escalation for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although rectal indometacin 100 mg is effective in reducing the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pancreatitis incidence remains high. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dose regimens of rectal indometacin on the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial, we enrolled patients from six tertiary medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients were those at high risk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositories and a placebo suppository (standard-dose group) or three 50 mg indometacin suppositories (high-dose group). 4 h after the procedure, patients assigned to the high-dose group received an additional 50 mg indometacin suppository, whereas patients in the standard-dose group received an additional placebo suppository. The randomisation schedule, stratified according to study centre and with no other restrictions, was computer generated by an investigator who was uninvolved in the clinical care of any participants, distributed to the sites, and kept by personnel not directly involved with the study. These same personnel were responsible for packaging the drug and placebo in opaque envelopes. Patients, study personnel, and treating physicians were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome of the study was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912716, and enrolment is complete.

FINDINGS

Between July 9, 2013, and March 22, 2018, 1037 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose (n=515) or high-dose indometacin (n=522). Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and 65 (12%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (risk ratio [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 0·87-1·61; p=0·32). We observed 19 adverse events that were potentially attributable to study drug. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 14 (1%) of 1037 patients-six (1%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and eight (2%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (p=0·79). Three (1%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group developed acute kidney injury versus none in the standard-dose group (p=0·25). A non-ST elevation myocardial infarction occurred in the standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP. A transient ischaemic attack occurred in the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP. All 19 adverse events, in addition to the 141 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission to hospital. We observed no allergic reactions or deaths at 30 day follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

Dose escalation to rectal indometacin 200 mg did not confer any advantage compared with the standard 100 mg regimen, with pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients. Current practice should continue unchanged. Further research should consider the pharmacokinetics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to determine the optimal timing of their administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP.

FUNDING

American College of Gastroenterology.

IV Ibuprofen for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Children: A Randomized Placebo-controlled Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is reported to occur in up to 11% of pediatric patients. To date, no study has prospectively evaluated an intervention to prevent PEP in children. It is unclear if such a study is even feasible.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of studying IV ibuprofen for PEP prevention in the pediatric population.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled feasibility study. Patients younger than 19 years of age undergoing ERCP were randomized to receive 10 mg/kg IV ibuprofen (max of 800 mg) or placebo (saline) at the time of ERCP. The primary outcome was PEP. Secondary outcomes included post-ERCP-related bleeding, rates of other procedural and medication-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight patients were randomized and received either IV ibuprofen or placebo. Preprocedure- and procedure-related factors were not significantly different between the groups except that patients in the placebo group tended to weigh less (48.7 vs 63.7 kg, P = 0.03). There were 7 episodes of PEP (12%). PEP was less frequently identified in the Ibuprofen group than in the control group (7% vs 17%), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.42). Mean postprocedural abdominal pain scores were significantly lower in the IV Ibuprofen group than in the control group (1.1 vs 3.1, P = 0.01) and the number of patients who had increased abdominal pain after the procedure was significantly lower in ibuprofen group than in the control group (3% vs 38%, P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in procedure-related or drug-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Postprocedural pain scores and the number of patients who had increased abdominal pain after the procedure were significantly lower in the IV ibuprofen group. The current study provides encouraging, but only very weak evidence that IV ibuprofen decreases PEP in children. Power analysis suggests that a small handful of high-volume pediatric centers would be able to perform an adequate clinical trial in a reasonable time frame. Focusing on all cause postprocedural pain (PEP and non-PEP) may allow for a more efficiency study design and be just as clinically relevant.