Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy-associated pancreatitis? A randomized, prospective study

Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Precut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.

RESULTS

Among 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.

The Influence of Symptomatic Status on Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Complications in Choledocholithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Choledocholithiasis presents variably, with some patients remaining asymptomatic, complicating decisions regarding the timing and necessity of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study represents the first meta-analysis assessing the impact of symptomatic status on post-ERCP complications and provides critical data to optimize treatment strategies. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar through February 2024, focusing on comparing ERCP outcomes between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with choledocholithiasis. Seven studies were included from an initial pool of 1,200 articles screened. The analysis revealed that asymptomatic patients exhibited a significantly higher overall complication rate (17.4% vs. 6.6%), including a threefold increase in the risk of developing complications overall (OR: 3.02; 95% CI: 2.26-4.03) and specifically post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 2.63-4.99). Perforation and procedural durations were also notably higher among asymptomatic individuals. Subgroup analyses highlighted prolonged cannulation times and the use of precut sphincterotomy as potential influential factors. These findings challenge the current practice that does not differentiate based on symptomatic status and suggest a need for more tailored approaches in managing asymptomatic individuals to minimize risks associated with ERCP.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention.

METHODS

In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups.

INTERPRETATION

For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

Balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for asymptomatic common bile duct stones on surgically altered anatomy: A high risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is more common in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones (CBDSs) and normal anatomy than in those with symptomatic CBDS; however, studies on the effect of surgically altered anatomy are lacking. We aimed to investigate whether asymptomatic CBDS in balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP cases for surgically altered anatomy also has a high incidence of PEP and analyze the risk factors for PEP.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 108 consecutive patients who underwent initial ERCP for CBDS with surgically altered anatomies and with naive papilla at Kitasato University Hospital from April 2015 to December 2022.

RESULTS

Study participants were as follows: 92 (85%) patients with symptomatic CBDS and 16 (15%) patients asymptomatic CBDS. The overall bile duct cannulation success rate was 89.8%, with PEP occurring in 7.4% of patients (symptomatic CBDS: 3.3%, asymptomatic CBDS: 31.3%). PEP incidence was significantly higher for asymptomatic CBDS (p = .0017). Multivariate analysis identified asymptomatic CBDS and precut sphincterotomy as significant risk factors for PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic CBDS may be a risk factor for PEP onset in balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP with surgically altered anatomy. Therefore, the procedure should be performed after obtaining sufficient informed consent and adequate preparation.

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 Safety and Efficacy of an Unflanged 4F Pancreatic Stent in Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Patients with Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Prospective Cohort Study

Prophylactic pancreatic stenting effectively reduces the rate and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the precut technique; however, studies on the optimal type and duration of the stent are still lacking. This prospective study evaluated the incidence and severity of PEP and the rate of spontaneous stent dislodgement in patients undergoing transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) accompanied by prophylactic pancreatic stenting with an unflanged plastic stent (4F × 5 cm) for difficult biliary cannulation. A total of 247 patients with naïve papilla were enrolled in this study, and data were collected prospectively. In the final analysis, 170 and 61 patients were included in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups, respectively. The incidence of PEP in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups was 3.5% and 1.6% (p = 0.679), respectively. The technical success rate of selective biliary cannulation in the TPS group was 91.8%. The spontaneous dislodgement rate of the prophylactic plastic stent was 98.4%. In conclusion, an unflanged pancreatic stent (4F × 5 cm) placement in TPS for patients with failed standard cannulation technique is a safe and effective measure due to low adverse events and few additional endoscopic procedures for removing the pancreatic duct (PD) stent.

Basic and Advanced Biliary Cannulation: How Do I Do It?

Successful biliary cannulation of a native papilla is usually the rate-limiting step toward a successful ERCP. Standard cannulation techniques usually succeed, particularly when utilizing the wire-guided technique. There are, however, a myriad of confirmations of the major papilla as well as anatomic variants and certain pathologies which can make cannulation exceedingly difficult. For these cases, advanced cannulation techniques and techniques termed "access sphincterotomy" have been developed which should allow successful cannulation in >90% of cases. This article should help all those performing ERCP to improve their cannulation rate.

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.

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.

Troubleshooting Difficult Bile Duct Access: Advanced ERCP Cannulation Techniques, Percutaneous Biliary Drainage, or EUS-Guided Rendezvous Technique?

Despite experienced hands and availability of various well-designed catheters and wires, selective bile duct cannulation may still fail in 10–20% of cases during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In case standard ERCP cannulation technique fails, salvage options include advanced ERCP cannulation techniques such as double-guidewire technique (DGW) with or without pancreatic stenting and precut papillotomy, percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided Rendezvous (EUS-RV) ERCP. If the pancreatic duct is inadvertently entered during cannulation attempts, DGW technique is a reasonable next step, which can be followed by pancreatic stenting to reduce risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Studies suggest that early precut papillotomy is not associated with a higher risk of PEP, while needle-knife fistulotomy is the preferred method. For patients with critical clinical condition who may not be fit for endoscopy, surgically altered anatomy in which endoscopic biliary drainage is not feasible, and non-communicating multisegmental biliary obstruction, PBD has a unique role to provide successful biliary drainage efficiently in this particular population. As endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage techniques advance, EUS-RV ERCP has been increasingly employed to guide bile duct access and cannulation with satisfactory clinical outcomes and is especially valuable for benign pathology at centres where expertise is available. Endoscopists should become familiar with each technique’s advantages and limitations before deciding the most appropriate treatment that is tailored to patient’s anatomy and clinical needs.

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.

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.

Advances in Biliary Access

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Bile duct cannulation using conventional techniques fails in up to 16% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. Advanced techniques to gain biliary access include ERCP-based maneuvers, and newer endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions. In this article, we review the evidence supporting the use of various ERCP and EUS techniques for biliary access, as well as studies comparing these different techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

In comparative studies, biliary access after failed conventional cannulation was more successful with EUS-rendezvous compared to precut papillotomy. EUS-guided drainage compares favorably with percutaneous drainage with respect to clinical success, safety profile, and cost-efficiency. Recent randomized trials comparing EUS to ERCP drainage in malignant obstruction have found similar success rates between these techniques. EUS-guided techniques compare favorably to ERCP-based methods for biliary access and drainage. The advent of newer technologies to facilitate interventional EUS may further change current treatment approaches.

Emerging Therapies to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

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.

Real-World Practice Patterns in the Era of Rectal Indomethacin for Prophylaxis Against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a High-Risk Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of indomethacin suppositories for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients was established in a landmark trial published in 2012. The aims of this study were to measure the adoption of indomethacin prophylaxis in widespread clinical practice, evaluate concurrent trends in pancreatic duct (PD) stent utilization, and estimate the impact of these changes on PEP in a high-risk population.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a commercial database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health, Somers, NY) that aggregates electronic health records from 26 US healthcare systems from 2009 to 2018. Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and were at high risk for PEP based on narrow criteria. PEP was defined as an emergency department or hospital admission 1-5 days after ERCP with an associated diagnosis of pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Twenty six thousand eight hundred twenty ERCPs were performed on this high-risk cohort from 2009 to 2018. The overall PEP rate during the study period was 8.6%. There was no decrease in PEP rates from 2012 to 2018. Beginning in 2012, indomethacin usage increased linearly (P < 0.001), but remained below 50% in 2018. As indomethacin increased, utilization of PD stents declined abruptly from 2013 to 2014 (40.7%-8.5%) and trended to a nadir of 3.0%.

DISCUSSION

Despite its low cost, widespread availability, and level I evidence of benefit in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, the adoption of rectal indomethacin during ERCP has been slow and the medication continues to be under-utilized. In parallel, the PD stent usage has declined dramatically. The lack of change in PEP rates during the study period could be attributable to the persistent low usage of rectal indomethacin or the decline in PD stent use. Further educational efforts and quality assurance measures are warranted to ensure that rectal indomethacin and PD stent placement are more appropriately used in clinical practice.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Complications and Their Management Strategies: A "Scoping" Literature Review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a well-known procedure with both diagnostic and therapeutic utilities in managing pancreaticobiliary conditions. With the advancements of endoscopic techniques, ERCP has become a relatively safe and effective procedure. However, as ERCP is increasingly being utilized for different advanced techniques, newer complications have been noticed. Post-ERCP complications are known, and mostly include pancreatitis, infection, hemorrhage, and perforation. The risks of these complications vary depending on several factors, such as patient selection, endoscopist's skills, and the difficulties involved during the procedure. This review discusses post-ERCP complications and management strategies with new and evolving concepts.

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.

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

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for prophylaxis against endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) postoperative pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Selected RCTs were pooled under a fixed effects model to generate the relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving a total of 5031 patients (2555 in the intervention group and 2476 in the control group) were selected. Overall, NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, I² = 40.4%) and moderate to severe PEP (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67, I² = 0%) compared with the control group. Subgroup analyses were performed according to route of administration (rectal or other), type of NSAIDs (diclofenac, indomethacin, or other), timing of administration (pre-ERCP, post-ERCP, or other), and patient population (high risk or general). Subgroup analyses showed difference in clinical efficacy of NSAID prophylaxis regardless of route, timing, or specific type of NSAID.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP and moderate to severe PEP compared to the control group.

Management of difficult or failed biliary access in initial ERCP: A review of current literature

Selective bile duct cannulation is the prerequisite for all endoscopic biliary therapeutic interventions, but this cannot always be achieved easily. Despite advances and new developments in endoscopic accessories, selective biliary access fails in 5%-15% of cases, even in expert high volume centers. Various techniques - such as double-guidewire induced cannulation, pre-cut papillotomy or transpancreatic sphincterotomy with or without placement of a pancreatic stent - have been used to improve cannulation success rates. Repeated and prolonged attempts at cannulation increase the risk of pancreatitis. Repeating the ERCP within a few days after initial failed pre-cut is a successful strategy and should be tried before contemplating more invasive, alternative interventions such as percutaneous-endoscopic or endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous procedure, percutaneous transhepatic or surgical intervention. However, standard guidelines or sequential protocol has not been existed up to now. In certain circumstances, there are unique clinical indications for which invasive, alternative interventions should be preferred. We present and discuss the methods that can be used in difficult or failed initial ERCP, therefore to provide practical advice for endoscopists, especially those who are inexperienced.

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.

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.

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been a mainstay examination to clarify the biliary and pancreatic system. Not just diagnostic purpose, it could achieve therapeutic goal. Under the trend of more and more procedures about ERCP being interventional, the rate of adverse events after the procedure is increasing. Among them, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common and sometimes tremendous complication. This mini-review will overview the PEP from definition, pathogenesis, and risk factors to prevention.

Wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic stent method increases the need for needle-knife precutting ın patients with difficult biliary cannulations

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cannulation of the major papilla can be problematic, and selective biliary cannulation may fail in up to 18% of cases. Various techniques, such as double-guidewire technique (DGWT), wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic stent (WGC-PS), the precut endoscopic sphincterotomy (needle-knife precutting technique (NKP), and transpancreatic septostomy have been used to improve the success rate of biliary cannulation. We conducted a prospective, randomized study in order to compare the biliary cannulation success rates of DGWT and WGC-PS techniques in patients with inadvertent passage of guidewire to the pancreatic duct.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients were included in the study and randomized to DGWT (n = 50) or WGC-PS (n = 50) groups. The primary outcome was successful selective cannulation, defined as deep cannulation with selective injection of radiographic contrast material into the common bile duct within 5 minutes by DGW or WGC-PS techniques without performing precut sphincterotomy.

RESULTS

Successful selective cannulation was achieved in 45 patients in the DGWT group (90%) and in 27 patients in the WGC-PS group (54%) (P < .001). Five patients (10%) in the DGWT group and 23 (46%) in the WGC-PS group required NKP for biliary access (P < .001). The overall cannulation rate was 98% for DGWT and 98% for WGC-PS (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with unintentional passage of a guidewire into the pancreatic duct during biliary cannulation attempts, the WGC-PS technique significantly increased the need for NKP compared with DGWT.

EUS-guided drainage: Summary of therapeutic EUS consortium meeting

EUS-guided drainage is a safe and efficacious endoscopic technique for biliary, pancreatic, and gallbladder decompression. Recent literature has described many successful procedural techniques and devices to achieve EUS-guided drainage. This consortium gathering advanced endoscopists with expertise in both ultrasonography and therapeutic endoscopy, discuss the introduction to learning several EUS-guided drainage approaches, devices, and technology involved, possible obstacles to certain procedural and all potential complications.

Modified prophylactic 5-fr pancreatic duct stent enhances the rate of spontaneous dislodgement: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement effectively reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients, but the optimal stent remains unclear. We modified a 5-Fr, 3 cm pancreatic stent by removing the flange on the pancreatic side and compared the rate of spontaneous dislodgement and complications with the ordinary stent.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial at six tertiary endoscopic centers. Patients deemed high risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis randomly received modified or ordinary pancreatic stent. The primary outcome was spontaneous stent dislodgement at five days and 14 days. Secondary outcomes were the success rate of stent placement and complications.

Results

A total of 276 patients were randomly assigned to receive modified stents (mS group) and ordinary stents (oS group). The placement of a pancreatic stent was successful in all 276 patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, major diagnosis, or indications for stenting. At five days the spontaneous dislodgement rate was 47.72% for the mS group and 15.67% for the oS group (p<0.001); at 14 days the rates were 84.21% and 42.65%, respectively (p < 0.001). Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis occurred in 6.52% of all patients. There were no significant differences regarding the incidences of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, hemorrhage or fever.

Conclusions

The modified short 5-Fr stent has a higher spontaneous dislodgement rate than ordinary pancreatic stent, thus obviating the need for endoscopic removal. The modified pancreatic stent does not increase the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or other complications. The endoscopist can consider removing the flange on the pancreatic duct side for prophylactic pancreatic duct manipulation.

Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail

AIM

To investigate the location to which a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Over a ten-year period at our hospital, 296 patients underwent their first ERCP procedure and had a pancreatic stent inserted; this study included 147 patients who had ERCP performed primarily for biliary investigation and had a pancreatic stent inserted to prevent PEP. We divided these patients into two groups: 131 patients with a stent inserted into the pancreatic head (head group) and 16 patients with a stent inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail (body/tail group). Patient characteristics and ERCP factors were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Pancreatic amylase isoenzyme (p-AMY) levels in the head group were significantly higher than those in the body/tail group [138.5 (7.0-2086) vs 78.5 (5.0-1266.5), P = 0.03] [median (range)]. No cases of PEP were detected in the body/tail group [head group, 12 (9.2%)]. Of the risk factors for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (≥ p-AMY median, 131 IU/L), procedure time ≥ 60 min [odds ratio (OR) 2.65, 95%CI: 1.17-6.02, P = 0.02) and stent insertion into the pancreatic head (OR 3.80, 95%CI: 1.12-12.9, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stent insertion up to the pancreatic body or tail reduces the risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and may reduce the risk of PEP.

Utility of serum phosphate as a marker for predicting the severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background

To date, no reliable marker for predicting the severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis exists. A previous animal study reported a correlation between serum phosphate level and the severity of acute pancreatitis.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of serum phosphate as a marker for predicting the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in humans.

Methods

A cohort of patients that were diagnosed with post-ERCP pancreatitis between January 2005 and December 2016 was queried. In addition to serum phosphate levels measured between 12 and 24 hours after ERCP, several candidates deemed suitable for accurately predicting the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis were also explored.

Results

A total of 191 patients with severe (n = 42, 22.0%) and mild-to-moderate (n = 149, 78.0%) post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Several factors for predicting severe post-ERCP pancreatitis were identified in the multivariate analysis: malignancy as the primary indication for ERCP (odds ratio (OR) 2.65, P = 0.038), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (OR 4.49, P = 0.016) and serum phosphate level (OR 1.97, P = 0.040). In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve of serum phosphate level for severe post-ERCP pancreatitis was 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.75). The optimal cut-off value of serum phosphate level for prediction of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis was 3.35 mg/dL (sensitivity, 0.62; specificity, 0.73).

Conclusions

Serum phosphate level after ERCP can be used as a reliable prognostic marker in predicting the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Future prospective studies would be the cogent next step in validating its value.

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has recently compiled guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) using evidence-based methods. Content regarding actual clinical practice, including detailed endoscopic procedures, instruments, device types and usage, has already been published by the JGES postgraduate education committee in May 2015 and, thus, in these guidelines we avoided duplicating such content as much as possible. The guidelines do not address pancreatic sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD). The guidelines for EPLBD are planned to be developed separately. The evidence level in this field is often low and, in many instances, strong recommendation has to be determined on the basis of expert consensus. At this point in time, the guidelines are divided into six items including indications, techniques, specific cases, adverse events, outcomes, and postoperative follow up.

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.

The efficacy and safety of the left lateral position for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is typically performed in prone position. In cases of difficulty in prone position, ERCP can be performed in left lateral position. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of left lateral position for ERCP compared with those of prone position.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between August 2015 and March 2016, a total of 62 patients with native papilla who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned to undergo the procedure in left lateral position (n = 31) or prone position (n = 31). The outcomes of procedures were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of the demographic data, indications for ERCP, comorbidities, anticoagulation agents, the types and doses of sedative agents, and procedural durations. The rates of technical success and adverse events were similar (96.8 and 40%, respectively, in left lateral group and 100 and 32.3%, respectively, in prone group). The rates of unintentional pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation and the acquisition of pancreatograms in left lateral group were significantly greater than those in prone group (9/30, 30.0% vs. 3/31, 9.7%, P = 0.046; 7/30, 23.3% vs. 1/31, 3.2%, P = 0.020, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (6/30, 20% vs. 5/31, 16.1%, P = 0.694).

CONCLUSION

The left lateral position for ERCP can be as effective and safe as prone position. Due to increased rates of unintended PD cannulation and contrast injection, the initial use of left lateral position may be limited to cases that exhibit difficulty in prone position.

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.

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Medications and Techniques

Over the past 2 decades, it increasingly has been recognized that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most predictable provocateur of acute pancreatitis, with an incidence of more than 15% in high-risk patients. For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the effect of periprocedural drug administration as well as different ERCP techniques on both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Although many agents and techniques have shown promise in small clinical studies, the majority of these have failed to yield consistent benefit in larger randomized patient groups. This review summarizes the data on medications and ERCP techniques that have been studied for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: A nationwide, register-based study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP.

METHODS

All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates.

RESULTS

Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%; p = 0.0033).

CONCLUSIONS

PS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.

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.

Transpapillary selective bile duct cannulation technique: Review of Japanese randomized controlled trials since 2010 and an overview of clinical results in precut sphincterotomy since 2004

In 1970, a Japanese group reported the first use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which is now carried out worldwide. Selective bile duct cannulation is a mandatory technique for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. Development of the endoscope and other devices has contributed to the extended use of ERCP, which has become a basic procedure to diagnose and treat pancreaticobiliary diseases. Various techniques related to selective bile duct cannulation have been widely applied. Although the classical contrast medium injection cannulation technique remains valuable, use of wire-guided cannulation has expanded since the early 2000s, and the technique is now widely carried out in the USA and Europe. Endoscopists must pay particular attention to a patient's condition and make an attendant choice about the most effective technique for selective bile duct cannulation. Some techniques have the potential to shorten procedure time and reduce the incidence of adverse events, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, a great deal of experience is required and endoscopists must be skilled in a variety of techniques. Although the development of the transpapillary biliary cannulation approach is remarkable, it is important to note that, to date, there have been no reports of transpapillary cannulation preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. In the present article, selective bile duct cannulation techniques in the context of recent Japanese randomized controlled trials and cases of precut sphincterotomy are reviewed and discussed.

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).

Balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastrectomy and intact papillae (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP has provided a marked improvement in the success rate of reaching the papilla and consecutive ERCP procedures in patients with surgically altered anatomy in the Roux-en-Y reconstruction setting. However, limited data are available on the outcome of balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y anatomy who have naïve papillae. We retrospectively evaluated the feasibility of balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in Roux-en-Y reconstruction after total or subtotal gastrectomy (RYG) with native papillae.

METHODS

We performed 123 ERCP procedures in 109 patients with RYG. Among these patients, 90 consecutive ERCPs in 90 patients with native papillae were included. When selective biliary cannulation failed, the double-guidewire technique, the precut technique, or the rendezvous technique were performed as advanced cannulation methods.

RESULTS

The overall success rate of reaching the papilla was 93.5% (115/123). The total procedure success rate was 88.1% (96/109). The adverse event rate was 7.3% (8/109). The success rate of the standard cannulation of the intact papilla was 67.8% (61/90). The final cannulation success rate was 95.6% (86/90) by using advanced cannulation methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Standard cannulation of the intact papilla in RYG cases remains challenging and uncertain. The use of various advanced cannulation methods improves the deep cannulation rate. Once selective cannulation succeeds, the treatment success rate is very high.

Wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic stent versus double guidewire technique in patients with difficult biliary cannulation

Background

In cases of difficult bile duct cannulation, the use of wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic stent (WGC-PS) or the double guidewire technique (DGT) may facilitate biliary cannulation. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of WGC-PS and DGT in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) performed between July 2009 and November 2014 at a single tertiary referral center. WGC-PS or DGT was performed in patients for whom biliary cannulation was difficult and guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct (PD) was inadvertently achieved while attempting the standard WGC technique. In those cases, we used the WGC-PS technique from July 2009 to January 2012 (WGC-PS group), and the DGT technique from February 2012 to November 2014 (DGT group). In the DGT group, WGC-PS was sequentially performed if successful biliary cannulation was not achieved during the DGT attempt. Consecutive patients who underwent DGT and/or WGC-PS with the aim of selective biliary cannulation were enrolled. The primary outcome parameter was the rate of initial successful biliary cannulation.

Results

During the study period 3270 ERCPs were performed and a total of 177 patients were enrolled. The rate of initial successful cannulation was 66.7 % (60/90) in the WGC-PS group and 70.1 % (61/87) in the DGT group (P = 0.632). In 26 cases of failed DGT, WGC-PS was sequentially performed in the DGT group, and cannulation was successful in 14 of these patients. The rate of successful cannulation without the needle-knife precut technique was significantly higher in the DGT group compared with the WGC-PS group (75/87, 86.2 % vs. 60/90, 66.7 %, P = 0.003). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 3.3 % (3/90) in the WGC-PS group and 10.3 % (9/87) in the DGT group (P = 0.077).

Conclusions

In patients for whom biliary cannulation was difficult and PD access was inadvertently achieved while attempting the standard WGC technique, both WGC-PS and DGT were equally effective. Furthermore, the stepwise approach using DGT followed by WGC-PS as needed facilitated successful biliary cannulation and reduced the need for the needle-knife precut technique.

Guidewire-assisted transpancreatic sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Precut techniques have been used to facilitate biliary cannulation during difficult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Presently, needle-knife sphincterotomy (NKS) is a commonly used precut technique. Since its first description, transpancreatic sphincterotomy, as an alternative method for bile duct entry when conventional biliary cannulation failed, has been debated on its success rate of cannulation and its complications, such as increased incidence of pancreatitis. Guidewire techniques are another effective method to improve the success rate of selective bile duct cannulation. This is a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to compare success rate, cannulation time, and complications of guidewire-assisted transpancreatic sphincterotomy (GATS) and NKS for difficult biliary cannulation.

METHODS

Between July 2010 and October 2013, consecutive patients who failed in the standard biliary cannulation were randomly assigned to the GATS and NKS groups. The outcome measures included success rate, cannulation time, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 149 patients were enrolled and analyzed: 73 in the GATS group and 79 in the NKS group. The characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. Bile duct cannulation was successful in 70 patients (95.9%) in the GATS group and 64 (84.2%) in the NKS group (P=0.018). The median cannulation time spent in precut was 193 seconds in the GATS group and 485 seconds in the NKS group (P<0.001). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of complications, pancreatitis, and hemorrhage (9.6% vs. 10.5%, 6.8% vs. 6.6%, 1.4% vs. 3.9%, respectively). No perforation occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

GATS compared with NKS increases biliary cannulation rate and requires less cannulation time during difficult biliary access. This technique is not associated with an increased risk for complications. It seems to be an effective and safe alternative for biliary access during difficult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

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.

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.

Risk factors for therapeutic ERCP-related complications: an analysis of 2,715 cases performed by a single endoscopist

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is now the exclusive endoscopic therapeutic modality for biliary as well as pancreatic diseases. The aim of the present study was to investigate patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP complications in a large-scale study of procedures performed by a single experienced endoscopist.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study which included a total of 2,715 therapeutic ERCPs enrolled in the final analysis. Potential important patient- and procedure-related risk factors for overall post-ERCP complications, pancreatitis and post-endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding were investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Following the first therapeutic ERCP, 327 patients suffered complications; pancreatitis was observed in 132 (4.9%) patients, hemorrhage in 122 (4.5%) patients, cholangitis in 63 (2.3%) patients, perforation in 3 (0.11%) patients, and basket impaction in 7 (0.26%) patients. History of acute pancreatitis was more common in patients with post-ERCP complications (P<0.001). Female gender, young age (<40 years), periampullary diverticulum, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, metal stent placement, opacification of main pancreatic duct and suprapapillary fistulotomy were not found to be risk factors for overall post-ERCP complications and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Multivariate analysis showed a history of acute pancreatitis, difficult cannulation, needle-knife papillotomy, transpancreatic sphincterotomy, opacification of first and second class pancreatic ductules and acinarization as independent risk factors for overall complications and PEP, whereas antiplatelet and anticoagulation drug use were not found to be independent risk factors for post-ES bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study demonstrate that the endoscopist's experience reduces patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP complications.