Prophylactic temporary 3F pancreatic duct stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study

Adverse Events and Device Failures Associated with Pancreatic Stents: A Comprehensive Analysis Using the FDA's MAUDE Database

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic duct stents (PDS) are widely used for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the adverse events associated with PDS placement. This study aims to investigate the reported adverse events and device failures related to PDS, utilizing the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

Post-marketing surveillance data from January 2013 to December 8, 2023, were extracted from the FDA's MAUDE database to analyze the reports pertaining to the use of commonly used PDS. The primary outcomes of interest were device issues and patient-related adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010, with the calculation of pooled numbers and percentages for each device and patient adverse event.

RESULTS

A total of 579 device issues and 194 patient-related adverse events were identified. Device issues were primarily attributed to stent deformation (n = 72; 12.4%), followed by migration of the device into the pancreatic duct or expulsion out of the duct (n = 60; 10.4%), and stent fracture/breakage (n = 55; 9.4%). Among the patient-reported adverse events, inflammation was the most common (n = 26; 13.4%), followed by reports of stents becoming embedded in tissue (n = 21; 10.8%) and stent occlusion/obstruction (n = 16; 8.2%). The most prevalent device failures associated with Advanix stents were material deformation, with perforation (n = 3, 30%) being the most frequently reported adverse event. Concerning Geenen stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 34, 16.9%) constituted the most common device-related adverse events, while inflammation (n = 20, 16.7%) was the most frequently reported patient-related issue. For Zimmon stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 22, 8.8%) were the most frequently reported device-related problems, whereas perforation (n = 7, 10.9%) and bleeding (n = 7, 10.9%) were the most frequent patient-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight important device and patient adverse events that endoscopists and referring providers should be aware of before considering pancreatic stent placement.

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP.

Results

We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score.

Conclusions

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

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 success rate of cannulation of needle-knife precut is superior to continuing wire-guided after difficult biliary cannulation with pancreatic stent placement

BACKGROUND

Difficult biliary cannulation and unintended pancreatic cannulation exist in biliary interventions during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic stent (PS-WGC) and needle-knife precut over a pancreatic stent (PS-NKP) may facilitate biliary cannulation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of PS-NKP and PS-WGC following guidewire passage into the pancreatic duct.

METHODS

A total of 304 patients who inserted a pancreatic stent and continued cannulation using wire-guided (PS-WGC) or needle-knife precut (PS-NKP) from October 2018 to November 2021 in three centers were ultimately enrolled in this study. The success rate of cannulation and incidence of complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Results of the success rate of cannulation in the PS-NKP (n = 98) group were significantly higher compared with the PS-WGC (n = 206) group (96.9% vs. 89.8%; P < 0.05). The overall adverse events were 10.2% (31/304), and PS-NKP had lower (PEP) rates compared with the PS-WGC (3.1% vs. 10.7%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The PS-NKP group is superior to the PS-WGC group in terms of the effectiveness and safety of continued cannulation. Using needle-knife precut, especially early use, over the pancreatic stent to continue cannulation reduced PEP compared with PS-WGC.

Predictive factors of difficult biliary cannulation: An experience of a tunisian tertiary center

Introduction

Selective biliary cannulation is a prerequisite for a successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, conventional biliary access can be difficult. The aims of our study were to determine the prevalence of difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) and its associated factors and to describe the efficiency and safety of used standard and advanced cannulation techniques.

Methods

We conducted a single-center retrospective study including all patients with naïve papilla who had an ERCP procedure in Gastroenterology department of Mohamed Taher Maamouri Hospital from June 2019 to December 2021. Efficiency was defined as successful selective deep biliary cannulation. DBC was defined based on the presence of one or more of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) criteria (5-5-1): more than five cannulation attempts, more than 5 min before cannulation and more than one accidental passage in the wirsung. Prevalence was measured using ESGE 5-5-1 cutoffs and chinese set cutoffs 15-10-2. Predictors of DBC were sought by univariate and multivariate analysis (SPSS software, p significant if < 0.05).

Results

We included 664 patients (mean age 62 years and sex ratio M/W = 0.8). Main indication for ERCP was choledocholithiasis (67%, n = 442) followed by malignant biliary stenosis (21%, n = 138). Based on ESGE criteria, prevalence of DBC was 42.62% (n = 283). Prevalence was 21.15% when 15-10-2 cutoffs are applied in trainee-involved procedure. Cumulative biliary success rate was 96.46%. Standard cannulation method achieved access in 98.2% while advanced methods permitted success in 92.2% in fistulotomy, 94.1% in papillotomy and 77.3% in transpancreatic sphincterotomy. Independent predictive factors of DBC in multivariate analysis were: Trainee presence OR 1.80 [1.24-2.65], SOD OR 4.71 [1.11-19.88], biliary stenosis found on imaging examinations (OR 2.53 [1.63-3.92], small papilla OR 4.09 [1.82-9.17] and difficult orientation of the papilla OR 14.90 [3.28-67.62].

Conclusion

DBC is a frequent endoscopic situation. Predictors of DBC can be related to trainee involvement in the procedure, anatomical and clinical factors. A thorough understanding of these factors can actively contribute to ERCP management plans.

An Insight on Pharmacological and Mechanical Preventive Measures of Post-ERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP)—A Review

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). With the progress of research in many drugs and technologies, promising efficacy has been achieved in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Recently, combined prevention has received more attention in order to further reduce the incidence of PEP. However, there is no review about the combined prevention of PEP. This review summarizes the medication and ERCP techniques that are used to prevent PEP and emphasizes that appropriate combination prevention approaches should be based on risk stratification.

JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy-to-understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In preparing the Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2021, the committee focused the issues raised by the results of nationwide epidemiological survey in 2016 in Japan METHOD: In addition to a systematic search using the previous JPN guidelines, papers published from January 2014 to September 2019 were searched for the contents to be covered by the guidelines based on the concept of GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinical questions (CQ) were prepared in 15 subject areas. Base on the facts that patients diagnosed with severe disease by both Japanese prognostic factor score and contrast-enhanced CT grade had a high fatality rate and that little prognosis improvement after 2 weeks of disease onset was not obtained, we emphasized the importance of Pancreatitis Bundles, which was shown to be effective in improving prognosis, and the CQ sections for local pancreatic complications had been expanded to ensure adoption of a step-up approach. Furthermore, on the facts that enteral nutrition for severe acute pancreatitis was not started early within 48 hours of admission and that unnecessary prophylactic antibiotics was used in almost all cases, we emphasized early enteral nutrition in small amounts even if gastric feeding is used and no prophylactic antibiotics in mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

All the members of the committee have put a lot of effort into preparing the extensively revised guidelines in the hope that more people will have a common understanding and that better medical care will be spread.

Difficult biliary cannulation in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction: An underestimated problem?

BACKGROUND

Failed biliary cannulation still poses a major challenge in patients undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To date, there is a lack of data on rates of Difficult Biliary Cannulation (DBC) in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO).

MATERIALS

This was a retrospective study (09/2015 to 02/2019) of consecutive patients with DMBO that underwent ERCP in four Italian centers. The primary outcome was to evaluate the rate of DBC. Secondary outcomes were: cannulation failure, rate of adverse events (AEs), the predictive factors for DBC as well as for AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 622 patients with DMBO, were included in the study, with 351(56,4%) matching the definition of DBC. One-hundred and two ERCP-related AEs occurred in 97 of 622 patients (15,6%). Subjects with DBC showed a higher risk for AEs (p = 0.02). The lack of pancreatitis prophylaxis (p = 0.03), diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma (p = 0.02), the use of papillotomy (OR=1.98; 95%CI = 1.14-3.45) and the combination of two or more techniques for cannulation (OR = 2.88; 95%CI = 1.04-7.97) were associated with the occurrence of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this study, patients with DMBO carries a higher rate of DBC thus requiring alternative techniques for biliary drainage. Furthermore, DBC carries a high risk for AEs. Further prospective multicentric studies are needed to confirm these data in this specific subgroup of patients.

Efficacy of Combining Aggressive Hydration With Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination modalities are superior to single modalities for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Different modalities have been employed to reduce the risk and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, there has been a paucity of studies comparing the efficacy of various prophylactic modalities for preventing PEP. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the relative efficacy of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological modalities for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all randomized controlled studies published until June 2020 that examined the effectiveness of pancreatic duct stents, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) based regimens, hydration, and their combinations for the prevention of PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. An NMA was performed to combine direct and indirect comparisons of different prophylactic modalities.

RESULTS

The NMA included 46 studies evaluating 18 regimens in 16,241 patients. Based on integral analysis of predictive interval plots, and expected mean ranking and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, combination prophylaxis with indomethacin + lactated Ringer's solution (LR), followed by diclofenac + nitrate and indomethacin + normal saline, was found to be the most efficacious modality for the overall prevention of PEP. Indomethacin + LR, followed by diclofenac and pancreatic duct stents, was the most efficacious modality for high-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination regimens with aggressive hydration or nitrate are superior to single modalities for the prevention of PEP.

The feasibility of pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent with a 0.025-in. guidewire

Pancreatic duct stenting is a well-established method for reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is no consensus on the optimal type of plastic stent. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new 4-Fr plastic stent for pancreatic duct stenting. Forty-nine consecutive patients who placed the 4-Fr stent into the pancreatic duct (4Fr group) were compared with 187 consecutive patients who placed a conventional 5-Fr stent (control group). The primary outcome was technical success. Complications rate, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce selection bias. The technical success rate was 100% in the 4Fr group and 97.9% in the control group (p = 0.315). Post-ERCP amylase level was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group than the control group before propensity score matching (p = 0.006), though without statistical significance after propensity score matching (p = 0.298). The rate of PEP in the 4Fr group (6.1%) was lower than the control group (15.5%), though without statistical significance before (p = 0.088) and after (p = 1.00) propensity score matching. Pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent would be at least similar or more feasible and safe compared to the conventional plastic stent.

Network meta-analysis of prophylactic pancreatic stents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of moderate-to-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

Seven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002-0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051-0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22-1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18-2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.

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.

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in low-risk patients

Background:

Evidence shows that rectal indomethacin (RI) reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The prophylactic role of RI in low-risk patients has not yet been identified. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP in low-risk patients.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP. RI was available starting November 2012. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected.

Results:

The study population included 2238 patients who underwent ERCP (1055 in the RI group and 1183 in the control group). PEP was diagnosed in 107 patients (4.8%). In a multivariate model of consecutive patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 55% (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.94; P=0.03). In a multivariate model that included 1874 (84%) low-risk patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 62% (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19-0.74; P=0.004). Propensity-matched group analysis was performed for low-risk native papilla patients. RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 61% (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18-0.8; P=0.009).

Conclusion:

RI reduced PEP in consecutive as well as low-risk patients. RI should be administrated in consecutive patients unless contraindicated. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with biliary neoplasms: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background and aims  Treatment of biliary neoplasms often involves multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedures. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This retrospective, multicenter cohort study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ES for prevention of PEP in patients with biliary neoplasm. Methods  Patients with biliary duct neoplasm who underwent ERCP between January 2006 and December 2016 were enrolled. The frequency of PEP was compared between the ES and non-ES groups using propensity score analysis. The effectiveness of ES in subgroups of patients who underwent biliary duct stent placement, intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy was analyzed by logistic regression. Results  Of the 362 patients enrolled, 84 (23.2 %) developed PEP. Propensity score matching for PEP risk factors in 172 ERCP procedures showed that the frequency of PEP in the ES group was lower than that in the non-ES group (19.7 % vs. 33.7 %). Non-ES was also an independent risk factor for PEP in patients who underwent intraductal ultrasound and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy (RR = 4.54 and 5.26), but was not an independent risk factor for PEP in patients with biliary duct stents. In addition, there was no evidence that the frequency of PEP was statistically different between patients with plastic stents and metal stents in the ES and non-ES groups ( P  = 0.14 and 0.10). Conclusions  ES is an effective technique to prevent PEP in patients with biliary neoplasms. In particular, ES is a safe technique to prevent PEP when performing IDUS and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  While several interventions may decrease risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it remains unclear whether one strategy is superior to others. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis among high-risk patients. Methods  A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database through May 2017. Interventions included: rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aggressive hydration with lactated ringer's (LR) solution, and pancreatic stent placement compared to placebo. Only studies with patients at high-risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of treatments was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Results  We identified 29 trials, comprising 7,862 participants comparing four preventive strategies. On network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, rectal NSAIDs (B = - 0.69, 95 % CI [-1.18; - 0.21]), pancreatic stent (B = - 1.25, 95 % CI [-1.81 to -0.69]), LR (B = - 0.67, 95 % CI [-1.20 to -0.13]), and combination of LR plus rectal NSAIDs (B = - 1.58; 95 % CI [-3.0 to -0.17]), were all associated with a reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreatic stent placement had the highest SUCRA probability (0.81, 95 % CI [0.83 to 0.80]) of being ranked the best prophylactic treatment. Conclusions  Based on this network meta-analysis, pancreatic stent placement appears to be the most effective preventive strategy for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND

Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), since it has been considered to be the most common complication of ERCP. Although ERCP can lead various complications, it can also be avoided.

AIM

To study the published evidence and systematically review the literature on the prevention and treatment for PEP.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on the prevention of PEP was conducted using the electronic databases of ISI Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. The electronic search for the review was performed by using the search terms “Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis” AND “prevention” through different criteria. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed between January 2009 and February 2019. Duplicate studies were detected by using EndNote and deleted by the author. PRISMA checklist and flow diagram were adopted for evaluation and reporting. The reference lists of the selected papers were also scanned to find other relevant studies.

RESULTS

726 studies meeting the search criteria and 4 relevant articles found in the edited books about ERCP were identified. Duplicates and irrelevant studies were excluded by screening titles and abstracts and assessing full texts. 54 studies were evaluated for full text review. Prevention methods were categorized into three groups as (1) assessment of patient related factors; (2) pharmacoprevention; and (3) procedural techniques for prevention. Most of studies in the literature showed that young age, female gender, absence of chronic pancreatitis, suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, recurrent pancreatitis and history of previous PEP played a crucial role in posing high risks for PEP. 37 studies designed to assess the impact of 24 different pharmacologic agents to reduce the development of PEP delivered through various administration methods were reviewed. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to reduce risks for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin immediately prior to or after ERCP in all patients is recommended by European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to prevent the development of PEP. The majority of the studies reviewed revealed that rectally administered indomethacin had efficacy to prevent PEP. Results of the other studies on the other pharmacological interventions had both controversial and promising results. Thirteen studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 distinct procedural techniques to prevent the development of PEP were reviewed. Pancreatic Stent Placement has been frequently used in this sense and has potent and promising benefits in the prevention of PEP. Studies on the other procedural techniques have had inconsistent results.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of PEP involves multifactorial aspects, including assessment of patients with high risk factors for alternative therapeutic and diagnostic techniques, administration of pharmacological agents and procedural techniques with highly precise results in the literature.

Pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial

Background and study aims  Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders leading to hospitalization and the most frequent complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Besides pharmaco-prophylaxis, pancreatic stenting has been demonstrated to protect from post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, it remains unclear which patients benefit from pancreatic stenting. We therefore hypothesized that in an unselected population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP increases risk of PEP and that this risk can be significantly reduced by pancreatic stenting. Patients and methods  This study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at four European centers. A total of 167 patients undergoing first-time ERCP were enrolled in this trial. In the case of inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 5 French plastic pancreatic stent of various length or no routine prophylactic intervention for PEP. Results  A total of 167 patients were included in the final analysis. Prophylactic stent insertion significantly reduced the rate of PEP during first-time ERCP (odds ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.19 - 0.98; P  = 0.04). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of PEP by prophylactic stent insertion after inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct was 8.1 for the intention-to-treat population. Conclusion  In an unselected patient population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP is associated with a high risk for PEP. This risk can be significantly reduced by prophylactic pancreatic stenting, which is a safe and feasible procedure.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using pancreatic stents: A review of efficacy, diameter and length

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an important procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event that can sometimes be fatal. However, prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) insertion has been performed to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, the efficacy of prophylactic PS insertion has been shown to prevent PEP. In addition, several types of stents have been used to decrease PEP. In this review, we introduce the details of these RCTs and meta-analyses and reveal the specifications for stent placement, for example, the stent diameter and length and the pancreatic region into which the stent should be inserted.

Pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a major role in the investigation and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe adverse effect. Prior meta-analyses have shown that prophylactic PS was useful for preventing PEP. However, abstract reports and patients who underwent endoscopic ampullectomy were included in the previous analyses. In addition, two meta-analyses involved non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy of PS for preventing severe PEP was different in each meta-analysis. Therefore, we performed the current meta-analysis, which included only full-text articles, and added new findings.

AIM

To reveal the efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for related RCTs. Among the reports retrieved, 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All full-text articles were published between 1993 and 2016. A total of 1475 patients were enrolled in the included studies; of these patients, 734 had a PS inserted, and 741 did not have a PS inserted. PEP and severe PEP occurrence were evaluated in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in all studies and occurred in 39 (5.3%) patients who received a PS. On the other hand, PEP occurred in 141 (19%) patients who did not receive a PS. The occurrence of PEP was significantly lower in the patients who underwent PS placement than in the patients who did not receive a PS (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < 0.001). In addition, the occurrence of severe PEP was evaluated. Notably, the occurrence of severe PEP was not observed in the stent group; however, the occurrence of severe PEP was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients who did not have a PS inserted. Severe PEP occurred significantly less often in the stent group than in the no stent group (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, prophylactic PS placement is useful for preventing PEP and severe PEP.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using 4-Fr pancreatic plastic stents placed with common-type guidewires: Results from a prospective multinational registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic plastic stents (PPS) can reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Prospective multicenter documentation of PEP rate after PPS placement is scarce. A new 4-Fr stent designed to be deployed over a 0.035-inch guidewire was used to assess the effectiveness of PEP prophylaxis.

METHODS

High-PEP-risk patients received a 4-Fr PPS for primary or secondary prophylaxis at seven centers in four countries. Patients were followed until spontaneous PPS migration, endoscopic stent removal, or for 4 months, whichever came first. Main outcome was PEP rate.

RESULTS

One hundred six (106) patients received PPS for PEP prophylaxis [61 (58%) primary, 45 (42%) secondary prophylaxis]. Median age was 54 years. Eighty-one (76%) PPS were placed using a 0.035-inch guidewire. By investigator choice 99 (93%) stents were single pigtail. Median stent length was 8 cm (range 3-12 cm). Technical success achieved in 100% of cases. Two patients in the primary prophylaxis group (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) experienced mild/moderate PEP. Seventy-eight PPS available for analysis underwent spontaneous migration after a median of 29 days. There were no reports of stent-induced ductal trauma. Post-hoc analysis of migration rate by PPS length showed no statistically significant trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk patients in the primary prophylaxis group, observed rates of PEP are low (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) with the use of prophylactic 4-Fr pancreatic duct stents compatible with a 0.035-inch guidewire. This low rate is not unequivocally due to the prophylactic stent.

Prophylactic efficacy of a novel method against postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether a novel method including prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement prevents postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 200 consecutive patients with bile duct stones measuring up to 8 mm in diameter and retrospectively recruited 113 patients undergoing ordinary endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) without PS placement from our previous study. In the novel method, EPBD and PS placement was attempted with a guidewire left in the main pancreatic duct for patients in whom stable guidewire placement in the main pancreatic duct was possible. EST was performed for patients in whom stable guidewire placement was impossible. The incidence rate of pancreatitis was compared between the novel method and ordinary EPBD, and risk factors for pancreatitis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 194 patients undergoing the novel method, EPBD and EST were performed in 180 and 14 patients, respectively. Following EPBD, PS placement was successful in 177/180 (98.3%) of patients. Pancreatitis occurred in 7/194 (3.6%) of patients after the novel method and 9/113 (8.0%) of patients after ordinary EPBD. There was a trend toward lower incidence rate of pancreatitis in the novel method. Stent dislodgement by the first postoperative morning and no previous endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) were identified as risk factors for pancreatitis after EPBD with PS placement. No previous ENBD was also identified as a risk factor for pancreatitis after ordinary EPBD.

CONCLUSION

Our novel method is likely to be superior to ordinary EPBD in preventing pancreatitis. Previous ENBD may prevent post-EPBD pancreatitis regardless of PS placement.

Early precut sphincterotomy does not increase the risk of adverse events for patients with difficult biliary access: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVE

The present study was conducted to investigate whether early precut sphincterotomy (EPS) itself increases the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, and perforation, or improves the overall success rates of biliary cannulation.

METHODS

Four electronical databases were searched systematically for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the incidence of adverse events for difficult biliary access (DBA) between EPS groups and persistent cannulation attempts (PCA). The primary endpoint was the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of bleeding and perforation, and the overall success rates of biliary cannulation. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data on the outcomes into random-effect models. Heterogeneity, sensitivity, and stratified analyses were performed with Review Manager 5.3. Furthermore, we performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to evaluate the reliability of the primary endpoint and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs (999 patients with DBA of 10450, 9.5%) were included. The incidence of PEP was significantly lower in EPS groups than PCA (risk ratio [RR] = 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36, 0.92, P = .02). Furthermore, TSA (TSA-adjusted 95% CI 0.30-0.82, P = .0061) and subgroup analysis stratified by the fellow involvement in initial cannulation before randomization, technique of precut, and the definition of DBA confirmed this finding. Success rates of overall cannulation (RR = 1.00, P = .94), bleeding (RR = 1.22, P = .58), and perforation (RR = 1.59, P = .32) were similar in both groups; however, the results of TSA could not confirm these findings.

CONCLUSION

Both the quality and the quantity of evidence supporting, compared with PCA, EPS itself do not increase the risk of PEP for DBA patients. Moreover, subgroup analysis demonstrated that EPS can significantly decrease the risk of PEP when it is performed by qualified staff endoscopists with using needle-knife fistulutomy earlier for patients with DBA.

[Endoscopic pancreatic stenting in pancreatic fistulas management]

AIM

To present 18-year experience of endoscopic transpapillary stenting in patients with pancreatic fistula.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study included 48 patients with pancreatic fistula resistant to conservative management. Pancreatic stenting was successful in 32 (66.7%) patients. In 30 (93.8%) of them stenting appeared as the final stage of pancreatic fistula treatment.

RESULTS

Inclidence of complications after endoscopic treatment was 4.2%. We evaluated long-term results in 23 cases within 8-184 months. There were good results in 21 (91.3%) cases and satisfactory - in 2 (8.7%) cases. We had not unsatisfactory results in our experience.

The "Scope" of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the potential for clinically significant morbidity and mortality. Several patient and procedural risk factors have been identified that increase the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Considerable research efforts have identified several pharmacologic and procedural interventions that can drastically affect the incidence of PEP. This review article addresses the underlying mechanisms at play for the development of PEP, identifying patient and procedural risk factors and meaningful use of risk-stratification information, and details current interventions aimed at reducing the risk of this complication.

Double guidewire endoscopic technique, a major evolution in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Results of a retrospective study with historical controls comparing two therapeutic sequential strategies

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic access to the common bile duct (CBD) remains difficult in 10% of cases, requiring alternative techniques .CBD access was difficult after either five unsuccessful attempts, five unintentional insertions into the pancreatic duct or >10-min-long unsuccessful attempts. This retrospective study with historical controls aimed to evaluate the benefit of the double guidewire (DGW) technique after failure of standard CBD cannulation.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2014, all patients requiring therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with difficult access to CBD were included in a Studied group. This group was compared to a historical ERCP control group from January 2009 to December 2011. In the Studied group, a sequential strategy including DGW technique was done when the guidewire was unintentionally passed into the pancreatic duct. In the control group, only pre-cut technique was used.

RESULTS

Among the 538 patients with naive papilla eligible for ERCP, 73 had difficult CBD access. Successful CBD access rate was higher in the Studied group: 91% (50/55) versus 67% (12/18) P = 0.0215. Complication rates were similar in both groups: 28% versus 20%, P = 0.5207. LOS was shorter in the Studied group (9.2 ± 8.5 vs 14.4 ± 7.4 days, P = 0.0028). Post-ERCP cholangitis were lower in the Studied group: 2% (1/55) versus 22% (4/18), P = 0.0118.

CONCLUSION

After standard cannulation failure, DGW technique increased successful CBD access rate and decreased LOS without increasing complications.

Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Selective biliary cannulation techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures and prevention of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques have been reported to achieve selective biliary cannulation success. For standard biliary cannulation procedures, the wire-guided cannulation technique has been reported to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and increase the biliary cannulation success rate, although conflicting reports exist. The pancreatic or double-guidewire technique and several precut techniques have been reported as useful techniques in difficult biliary cannulation cases. Although ERCP is a useful endoscopic procedure, the risk of adverse events, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, is inevitable. Previous studies and analyses have revealed the risk factors for PEP. The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing PEP has also been reported. Herein, we reviewed reports in the literature regarding the current status of selective biliary cannulation techniques and PEP prevention.

Revised Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2015: revised concepts and updated points

BACKGROUND

Taking together the recent dramatic changes of the revised Atlanta classification and evidence newly obtained such as the role of step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis, the revision committee of the Japanese (JPN) Guidelines 2015 was prompted to perform an extensive revision of the guidelines.

METHODS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 was compared to the former edition 2010, and revision concepts and major revision points were reviewed. We compared the JPN 2015 with the other two guidelines, International Association of Pancreatology (IAP)/American Pancreas Association (APA) 2013 and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2013, in order to clarify the distinct points.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis team conducted a new meta-analysis of four subjects that have been associated with conflicting results. It is apparent that the revised guidelines have been created more systematically and more objectively. As of antibiotics prophylaxis, its use in early phase (within 72 h of onset) for severe acute pancreatitis is recommended in JPN 2015 according to the results of original meta-analysis, whereas the other two guidelines do not recommend its routine use. An approach and management of local complications in necrotizing pancreatitis including infected necrosis are almost similar in the three guidelines. JPN 2015 alone emphasizes the implementation of the pancreatitis bundles that specify the management and treatment within the first 48 h after the onset of severe acute pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

The JPN Guidelines 2015 prove to be the highest quality in terms of systematic literature review conducting original analyses by the meta-analysis team, determining the grading of recommendations and providing pancreatitis bundles.

Prophylactic Efficacy of 3- or 5-cm Pancreatic Stents for Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement is effective for preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). The most effective type of stent, however, remains unclear. Therefore, we prospectively compared the prophylactic efficacy for PEP prevention between short (3 cm) and long (5 cm) pancreatic stent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2012 and June 2014, 240 consecutive patients requiring therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to remove a choledocholith or for bile drainage for obstructive jaundice were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo prophylactic insertion with unflanged, 5 Fr, 3 or 5-cm pancreatic stent. An efficacy of each stent for preventing PEP was evaluated as a primary endpoint. The period until stent dislodgement and the total adverse event rate were also evaluated as a secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Per-protocol analysis revealed that the PEP rate was significantly lower with the short stent than with the long stent (2.0% vs. 8.8%, P=0.035), although they were not significantly different in intention-to-treat analysis. The adverse event rate excluding PEP did not differ significantly between groups (3.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.293). The median period until dislodgement of the short stent was significantly shorter than that of the long stent (2 vs. 4 d, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study revealed a superiority of 3-cm stents compared with 5-cm stents for prophylactic pancreatic stent. On the basis of the past reports and the result of the present study, we recommend using a 5 Fr, 3-cm unflanged stent.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000008290).

Early Precut Sphincterotomy Does Not Increase Risk During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients With Difficult Biliary Access: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Use of precut sphincterotomy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can increase the odds for cannulation success but is associated with increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Earlier, rather than delayed, use of precut sphincterotomy for cases with difficult biliary access might reduce this risk. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to determine how early use of precut sphincterotomy affects the risk of pancreatitis and rate of cannulation success compared with persistent standard cannulation.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, along with meeting abstracts, through August 2014 for randomized controlled trials in which early precut sphincterotomy was compared with persistent standard cannulation in adults with difficult biliary access. Outcomes considered included primary cannulation success, overall cannulation success, incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and overall adverse event rate. Findings from a random-effects model were expressed as pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 5 studies (523 participants). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and success of overall cannulation did not differ significantly between the early precut and persistent standard therapy groups. Early use of precut sphincterotomy was associated with increased odds for primary cannulation success (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68). In subgroup analysis of studies that involved only fully qualified biliary endoscopists (not fellows), we found a significant reduction in risk of pancreatitis among patients receiving early precut vs the standard technique (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.86).

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard therapy, early use of precut sphincterotomy did not increase the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in a meta-analysis. When the procedure is performed by qualified biliary endoscopists, early precut can reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rates of primary cannulation increase with early precut. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety profile of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials of prophylactic PD stent placement after ERCP. RevMan 5 software provided by Cochrane was used for the heterogeneity and efficacy analyses, and a meta-analysis was performed for the data that showed homogeneity. Categorical data are presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and measurement data are presented as weighted mean differences and 95%CIs.

RESULTS: The incidence rates of severe pancreatitis, operation failure, complications and patient pain severity were analyzed. Data on pancreatitis incidence were reported in 14 of 15 trials. There was no significant heterogeneity between the trials (I² = 0%, P = 0.93). In the stent group, 49 of the 1233 patients suffered from PEP, compared to 133 of the 1277 patients in the no-stent group. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that it may be possible to prevent PEP by placing a PD stent.

CONCLUSION: PD stent placement can reduce postoperative hyperamylasemia and might be an effective and safe option to prevent PEP if the operation indications are well controlled.

Needle-knife fistulotomy vs double-guidewire technique in patients with repetitive unintentional pancreatic cannulations

AIM: To compare the success rates and adverse events of early needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF) and double-guidewire technique (DGT) in patients with repetitive unintentional pancreatic cannulations.

METHODS: From a total of 1650 patients admitted for diagnostic or therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at a single tertiary care hospital (Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, South Korea) between January 2009 and December 2012, 134 (8.1%) patients with unsuccessful biliary cannulation after 5 min trial of conventional methods, together with 5 or more repetitive unintentional pancreatic cannulations, were enrolled in the study. Early NKF and DGT groups were assigned 67 patients each. In the DGT group, NKF was performed for an additional 7 min if successful cannulation was not achieved.

RESULTS: The success rates with early NKF and the DGT were 79.1% (53/67) and 44.8% (30/67) (P < 0.001), respectively. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was lower in the early NKF group than in the DGT group [4.5% (3/67) vs 14.9% (10/67), P = 0.041]. The mean cannulation times in the early NKF and DGT groups after assignment were 257 s and 312 s (P = 0.013), respectively.

CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that early NKF should be considered as the first approach to selective biliary cannulation in patients with repetitive unintentional pancreatic cannulations.

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.

Twenty-Second versus Sixty-Second Dilation Duration in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Small Common Bile Duct Stones: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been advocated as an alternative therapy to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, there is no established consensus on the optimal balloon dilation duration (BDD). We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications between the 20- and 60-second EPBD groups.

METHODS

A total of 228 patients with small CBD stones (≤12 mm) were randomly assigned to undergo EPBD with a 20- or 60-second duration at six institutions. We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, endoscopic data, clinical outcomes, and procedure-related complications. In addition, we analyzed risk factors for postprocedural pancreatitis.

RESULTS

CBD stones were removed successfully in 107 of 109 patients (98.1%) in the 20-second group and in 112 of 119 patients (94.1%) in the 60-second group (p=0.146). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in seven patients (6.4%) in the 20-second group and nine patients (7.5%) in the 60-second group (p=0.408). In multivariate analysis, contrast dye injection into the pancreatic duct is a significant risk factor for post-EPBD pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data showing that there were no significant differences in safety and efficacy between the two BDD groups, 20 seconds of BDD may be adequate for treatment of small CBD stones with EPBD.

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.

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.

Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prevention strategies targeting risk factors could be important to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are still debated. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to identify risk factors for PEP.

METHODS

Medline (PubMed and Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials & Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Springer links and WEB OF SCIENCE were searched for published studies in all languages. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Eighteen probable risk factors were evaluated, and outcomes were expressed in the case of dichotomous variables, as an odds ratio (OR) (with a 95% confidence interval, (CI)).

RESULTS

When patient-related risk factors were analyzed, the ORs for female gender was 1.46 (95%CI: 1.30-1.64); for previous pancreatitis 2.03 (95%CI: 1.31-3.14); for previous PEP was 2.90 (95%CI: 1.87-4.48); for Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) was 2.04 (95%CI: 1.73-2.33) and for Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) was 3.01 (95%CI: 1.34-6.77). Four endoscopy-related factors were confirmed: the OR for difficult cannulation was 3.49 (95%CI: 1.364-8.925); for endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) it was 1.39 (95%CI: 1.09-1.79); for precut sphincterotomy it was 2.25 (95%CI: 1.70_2.96); and for main pancreatic duct injection it was 1.58 (95%CI: 1.21-2.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Female gender, previous pancreatitis, previous PEP, SOD, IPMN, difficult cannulation, EST, precut sphincterotomy and main pancreatic duct injection are risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Endoscopic prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is not an uncommon adverse event but may be an avoidable complication. Although pancreatitis of severe grade is reported in 0.1%-0.5% of ERCP patients, a serious clinical course may be lethal. For prevention of severe PEP, patient risk stratification, appropriate selection of patients using noninvasive diagnostic imaging methods such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and avoidance of unnecessary invasive procedures, are important measures to be taken before any procedure. Pharmacological prevention is also commonly attempted but is usually ineffective. No ideal agent has not yet been found and the available data conflict. Currently, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used to prevent PEP in high-risk patients, but additional studies using larger numbers of subjects are necessary to confirm any prophylactic effect. In this review, we focus on endoscopic procedures seeking to prevent or decrease the severity of PEP. Among various cannulation methods, wire-guided cannulation, precut fistulotomy, and transpancreatic septostomy are reviewed. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, which is the best-known prophylactic method, is reviewed with reference to the ideal stent type, adequate duration of stent placement, and stent-related complications. Finally, we comment on other treatment alternatives, and make the point that further advances in EUS-guided techniques may afford useful PEP prophylaxis.

Impact of pancreatic stent caliber on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram pancreatitis rates in patients with confirmed sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Despite proven clinical benefit, there are no studies that have examined the relationship between pancreatic stent caliber and its impact on PEP [post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram (ERCP) pancreatitis] in high-risk patients.

AIM

To study the relationship between stent caliber and PEP rates in patients with confirmed sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of ERCP's in patients with SOD from 2002 to 2012 from a prospectively maintained, Institutional Review Board approved database.

RESULTS

A total of 243/7659 (3.2%) patients underwent 3Fr or 5Fr pancreatic stent placement following sphincterotomy for manometry-proven SOD. Of these, 133 (54.7%) underwent 3Fr stent placement, while 110 (45.3%) underwent 5Fr stent placement. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics, demographics, and previous cholecystectomy. Cannulation and stent placement success rates were 100% in both groups. There was no significant difference in rates of PEP and overall complications, 12% versus 12.7%; P = 0.89 and 13.5% versus 15.5%; P = 0.54, between the 3Fr and 5Fr cohorts, respectively. There were more mild PEP rates recorded in 5Fr group (93% vs 56% P = 0.0549) that was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no relationship between stent characteristics and the risk or severity of PEP in patients with manometrically proven SOD.

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of pancreatic stents for preventing pancreatitis in high-risk patients after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify relevant trials published in English. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for suitable studies. Two reviewers independently judged the study eligibility while screening the citations. The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Jadad scoring system. All results were expressed as OR and 95%CI. Data were analyzed using Stata12.0 software.

RESULTS: Ten eligible randomized controlled trials were selected, including 1176 patients. A fixed-effects model in meta-analysis supported that pancreatic duct stents significantly decreased the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients (OR = 0.25; 95%CI: 0.17-0.38; P < 0.001). Pancreatic stents also alleviated the severity of PEP (mild pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.21-0.54; P < 0.001; moderate pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.13-0.67; P = 0.004). The result of severe pancreatitis after ERCP was handled more rigorously (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.05-1.16; P = 0.077). Serum amylase levels were not different between patients with pancreatic stents and control patients (OR = 1.08; 95%CI: 0.82-1.41; P = 0.586).

CONCLUSION: Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents may lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients and alleviate the severity of this condition.

Prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: the endoscopic technique

Pancreatitis is the most frequent and distressing complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many recent studies have reported the use of pharmacological agents to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); however, the most effective agents have not been established. Reduction in the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients has been reported through specific cannulation techniques such as guide wire-assisted cannulation and the use of pancreatic stents. The present review focuses on ERCP techniques for the prevention of PEP.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. Previous meta-analyses show that prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement after ERCP is beneficial for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results of these meta-analyses are controversial due to the limited sample size of the eligible studies, in which six additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not included. Our aim is, therefore, to update the current meta-analyses regarding PS placement for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis to identify RCTs comparing PS placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Of the 1,541 patients, 760 patients received a PS and 781 patients were allocated to the control group. PS placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis stratified according to the severity of PEP showed that a PS was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.32-0.62; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.26; 95 %CI 0.09-0.76; P = 0.01). In addition, subgroup analysis performed according to patient selection demonstrated that PS placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that PS placement prevented PEP after ERCP as compared with no PS placement. We therefore recommend PS placement after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.

Clinical efficacy of endoscopic pancreatic drainage for pain relief with malignant pancreatic duct obstruction

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of pancreatic drainage for pain relief in advanced pancreatic cancer.

METHOD

Seventy-one patients with pancreatic carcinoma were divided into two groups: dilated and non-dilated pancreatic ducts. All patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic biliary stenting and pancreatic stenting. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, pain remission rates and survival time were evaluated during follow-up.

RESULTS

The post-ERCP VAS score of the dilated group was lower than that of the non-dilated group at 1 and 3 months post-ERCP. There was no difference at 6 months. The pain remission rate in the dilated duct group was significantly higher than that in non-dilated duct group in 1 and 3 months post-ERCP. The median survival times were 8.17 and 8.22 months respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic pancreatic drainage can relieve pain of advanced pancreatic cancer accompanied by safe dilation of the pancreatic duct.

Results of the Tokyo trial of prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with risperidone-2: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Our previous study suggested that a combination of ulinastatin and risperidone reduced post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) compared with ulinastatin alone.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of risperidone alone for prevention of PEP.

DESIGN

A multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

SETTING

Two academic hospitals and 5 referral hospitals in Tokyo and Saitama, Japan.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing therapeutic or interventional-diagnostic ERCP.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomized to receive 2 mg of oral risperidone or oral placebo at 0.5 to 2 hours before ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the incidence of PEP. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of hyperenzymemia and enzyme levels (amylase, pancreatic amylase, lipase). Risk factors for PEP were evaluated.

RESULTS

We initially enrolled 500 patients in the study (250 in the risperidone group and 250 in the placebo group), but 17 (11 in the risperidone and 6 in the placebo group) were excluded after randomization. PEP developed in 24 patients (10.0%) in the risperidone group and 21 patients (8.6%) in the placebo group (P = .587). Serum amylase levels at 3 hours after ERCP were lower in the risperidone group (P = .007 in a single test of hypothesis, significance removed by Bonferroni correction for multiple testing). In multivariate analysis, a small papilla of Vater, total procedure time ≥40 minutes, and stenosis of the intrahepatic duct were significantly associated with PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Multiplicity of study centers and a relatively wide time range of drug administration time.

CONCLUSION

Risperidone did not show a benefit in prevention of PEP in this trial. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT000004592.).

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.

Papillary balloon dilation is not itself a cause of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; results of anterograde and retrograde papillary balloon dilation

OBJECTIVES

The mechanism of pancreatitis development following endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) remains unknown. Antegrade dilation with percutaneous transhepatic papillary balloon dilation (PTPBD) allows the removal of bile duct stones or fragments during percutaneous choledochoscopic lithotomy, with less mechanical trauma to the papilla than with EPBD-mediated stone removal.

METHODS

A total of 56 patients with bile duct stones underwent antegrade dilation with PTPBD from March 2006 to February 2011. A total of 208 patients with common bile duct stones underwent retrograde dilation with EPBD during the same period. The conditions of papillary balloon dilation were identical in both groups. The frequencies of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were compared in both groups.

RESULTS

Pancreatitis occurred in 14 (6.7%) of 208 patients in the EPBD group (mild, nine; moderate, four; severe, one). There was no case of pancreatitis among 56 patients in the PTPBD group (P < 0.05). Hyperamylasemia developed in significantly more patients treated in the EPBD group (62, 29.8%) compared with the PTPBD group (4, 7.1%; P < 0.05). Complete bile duct clearance was achieved in 98.2% of PTPBD group and 97.1% of EPBD group.

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of post-procedural pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia were significantly higher after retrograde dilation with EPBD than after antegrade dilation with PTPBD for the removal of bile duct stones. Although the mechanism of pancreatitis following papillary balloon dilation remains unclear, post-EPBD pancreatitis may be associated with procedures before and after balloon dilation similar to mechanical lithotripsy rather than balloon dilation itself.