Rectal indomethacin is protective against post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients but not average-risk patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for the Prevention of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remains the most frequent and severe complication following ERCP, elevating both patient suffering and healthcare costs, and posing challenges to the advancement of ERCP techniques. Empirical evidence supports the prophylactic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the prevention of PEP, especially in high-risk populations, as endorsed by both the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, the prophylactic efficacy of NSAIDs in average-risk individuals, alongside the ideal drug selection, dosing, and timing of NSAID administration, remains to be elucidated. Furthermore, the synergistic preventive potential of NSAIDs when integrated with other interventions, such as hydration, pancreatic stenting, somatostatin administration, sublingual nitrate application, and epinephrine, warrants further clarification. In this paper, we conduct an exhaustive review of the prophylactic effect and clinical administration of NSAIDs for PEP. We comprehensively synthesize findings from clinical trials investigating NSAIDs, both in monotherapy and combination regimens, for PEP prevention. Additionally, we scrutinize the current landscape of NSAID usage in clinical practice and evaluate their cost-effectiveness. Future research should concentrate on refining NSAID prophylaxis strategies for PEP in patients at different risk levels, while also enhancing adherence to clinical guidelines and alleviating the issue of NSAID cost inflation.

Intravenous Hemin, a potential heme oxygenase-1 activator, does not protect from post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in humans: Results of a randomized multicentric multinational placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Hemin, a heme oxygenase 1 activator has shown efficacy in the prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis in mouse models. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the protective effect of Hemin administration to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in patients at risk.

METHODS

In this multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT, we assigned patients at risk for PEP to receive a single intravenous dose of Hemin (4 mg/kg) or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were considered to be at risk on the basis of validated patient- and/or procedure-related risk factors. Neither rectal NSAIDs nor pancreatic stent insertion were allowed in randomized patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes included lipase elevation, mortality, safety, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 282 of the 294 randomized patients had complete follow-up. Groups were similar in terms of clinical, laboratory, and technical risk factors for PEP. PEP occurred in 16 of 142 patients (11.3%) in the Hemin group and in 20 of 140 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.48). Incidence of severe PEP reached 0.7% and 4.3% in the Hemin and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.07). Significant lipase elevation after ERCP did not differ between groups. Length of hospital stay, mortality and severe adverse events rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We failed to detect large improvements in PEP rate among participants at risk for PEP who received IV hemin immediately after the procedure compared to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01855841).

Endotherapy for Pancreas Divisum

Pancreas divisum (PD) is a common anatomic variant of the pancreatic duct. Causal association between PD and pancreatitis has been debated for many years. Minor papilla sphincterotomy (miES) is offered in clinical practice to patients with idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis (iRAP) and PD. However, available data originate mainly from observational studies with many limitations. An ongoing international, multicenter, sham-controlled trial is evaluating the efficacy of miES in iRAP and PD. Endoscopic therapy for pain relief has limited to no benefit in patients with chronic abdominal pain or chronic pancreatitis who have PD and is not recommended.

Universal prophylactic rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with a policy of selective pancreatic duct stenting significantly reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective for the prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, the benefit in average-risk patients is unclear. We aimed at assessing the benefit of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs in unselected consecutive patients to prevent PEP.

METHODS

All patients undergoing index ERCP procedures from January 2018 until March 2020 were included. All patients received prophylactic rectal diclofenac. A prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent was placed if there was repeated PD cannulation, at the discretion of the endoscopist. The frequency of PEP was compared with historical controls.

RESULTS

Of 769 patients who underwent ERCP, 34 (4.4%) developed PEP (mild in 29 [85.3%], moderate in four [11.8%] and severe in one [2.9%]). Female gender, precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent PD cannulation and procedural time of > 30 minutes predicted PEP in univariate analysis. Inadvertent PD cannulation (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8-11.7; p < 0.001) and procedural time of > 30 minutes (OR 8.5, 95% CI: 3.7-10.1; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. When compared with historical controls, the odds of PEP with prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs and selective PD stenting was 0.54 (CI: 0.31-0.93, p = 0.027). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 22 to prevent one PEP with prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs effectively prevents the occurrence of PEP in unselected consecutive patients in a real-world scenario.

ORAL N-ACETYL CYSTEINE VERSUS RECTAL INDOMETHACIN FOR PREVENTION OF POST ERCP PANCREATITIS: A MULTICENTER MULTINATIONAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

BACKGROUND

This multicenter multinational RCT designed to compare the efficacy of suppository indomethacin and NAC for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

During a 6-month period, all of the ERCP cases in seven referral centers were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg oral NAC, indomethacin suppository 100 mg, 1200 mg oral NAC plus indomethacin suppository 100 mg or placebo 2 hours before ERCP. The primary outcomes were the rate and severity of any PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 432 patients included (41.4% male). They were originally citizens of 6 countries (60.87% Caucasian). They were randomly allocated to receive either NAC (group A, 84 cases), rectal indomethacin (group B, 138 cases), NAC + rectal indomethacin (group C, 115 cases) or placebo (group D, 95 cases). The rate of PEP in groups A, B and C in comparison with placebo were 10.7%, 17.4%, 7.8% vs 20% (P=0.08, 0.614 & 0.01 respectively). The NNT for NAC, indomethacin and NAC + indomethacin was 11, 38 and 8 respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oral NAC is more effective than rectal indomethacin when compared to placebo for prevention of PEP and the combination of NAC and Indomethacin had the lowest incidence of PEP and may have synergistic effect in preventing of PEP (IRCT20201222049798N1; 29/12/2020).

The Incidence and Severity of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Standard Administration of NSAIDs: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin was demonstrated to be an effective prevention method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and explore the discrepancies of PEP incidences among different subgroups.

METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Ovid EMBASE databases were searched for studies published until December 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported rectal administration of 100 mg or higher doses of diclofenac or indomethacin, with PEP as the primary outcomes were eligible for inclusion. The overall and severity of PEP were estimated. Subgroup analysis was performed based on geographic regions, risk level, study beginning time, type of NSAIDs, administration time, and sample size.

RESULTS

There were 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7954 patients in 31 NSAIDs arms. The pooled incidences were 7.2% for overall PEP (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.5%), 5.0% for mild PEP (95% CI, 4.0-6.0%), and 1.5% for moderate and severe PEP (0.8-2.3%). PEP rate were higher in patients receiving rectal indomethacin than that of patients receiving rectal diclofenac (7.8% (95% CI, 6.4-9.3%) vs 3.8% (95% CI, 2.2-5.3%), p = 0.009). The PEP rates of high-risk patients and average-risk patients were 8.9% (95% CI, 5.6-12.2%) and 6.4% (95% CI, 5.1-7.6%), respectively (p = 0.160).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PEP was higher in patients receiving 100 mg rectal indomethacin than patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac. The effect of 100 mg diclofenac versus indomethacin on preventing PEP requires further study.

An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Effectiveness of Aggressive Hydration Versus High-dose Rectal Indomethacin in the Prevention of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatographic Pancreatitis (AHRI-PEP)

BACKGROUND

Although rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended as the standard pharmacologic modality to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), vigorous periprocedural hydration (vHR) with lactated Ringer's solution (LR) is emerging as an effective prophylaxis modality for PEP. There has been no head-to-head comparison between these 2.

STUDY

This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, noninferiority, parallel-assigned, equal allocation, controlled clinical trial in a tertiary care hospital. Consecutive adults referred for ERCP, satisfying predefined inclusion criteria, underwent simple randomization and blinded allocation into 2 groups. Those allocated to vHR received intravenous LR at 3 mL/kg/h during procedure, 20 ml/kg bolus immediately afterward, and then at 3 mL/kg/h for another 8 hours. Those randomized to rectal Indomethacin received only per-rectal 100 mg suppository immediately post-ERCP. Assuming PEP of 9% in Indomethacin arm and noninferiority margin of 4%, we calculated sample size of 171 patients in each arm for 80% power and α-error 5%. Primary outcome was incidence of PEP, within 1 week, as defined by Cotton's criteria. All analysis were done by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

Between October, 2017 to February, 2018, 521 patients were assessed. In all, 352 were enrolled, 178 randomized to vHR, and 174 to per-rectal Indomethacin. Baseline details and ERCP outcomes were not different between 2 groups. PEP occurred in 6 (1.7%) overall, with 1 (0.6%) in hydration arm, and 5 (2.9%) in indomethacin arm; an absolute risk reduction of 2.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.9%-3.5%) and odds ratio of 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.02-1.65). Three patients developed severe PEP, all receiving indomethacin.

CONCLUSIONS

vHR with LR is noninferior to postprocedure per-rectal Indomethacin for PEP prevention (ClinicalTrials.govID:NCT03629600).

Effect of Quercetin on Injury to Indomethacin-Treated Human Embryonic Kidney 293 Cells

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are used to treat inflammation and pain and even to prevent the progression of cardiovascular disease. They have become widely used because of their effectiveness, especially among athletes performing high-intensity training. Indomethacin is used for pain management in sports medicine and is highly effective and versatile. However, several clinical studies have reported that indomethacin induces acute renal damage. In the present study, we determined that indomethacin reduced human embryonic kidney 293 (HEK293) cell viability in a concentration-dependent manner by triggering apoptosis. In addition, we demonstrated the effect of quercetin on indomethacin-treated HEK293 cells by inactivating the caspase-3 and caspase-9 signals. Furthermore, quercetin reduced ROS production and increased mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm) in indomethacin-treated HEK293 cells. Our results indicate that quercetin can interrupt the activated caspase and mitochondrial pathway induced by indomethacin in HEK293 cells and affect apoptotic mRNA expression. Quercetin can protect against indomethacin-induced HEK293 cell apoptosis by regulating abnormal ΔΨm and apoptotic mRNA expression.

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are equally efficient in preventing pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in average-risk patients

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are promising drugs for prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, their prophylactic effect on PEP in average‐risk patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal indomethacin and diclofenac in average‐risk patients, and to indirectly compare the prophylactic effect of the two drugs. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on rectal indomethacin or diclofenac for prophylaxis against PEP. Fixed‐ and random‐effects models weighted by the Mantel–Haenszel method were used for direct comparisons. The adjusted indirect treatment comparison method was used to indirectly compare the efficacy of indomethacin and diclofenac. A total of 10 RCTs, including 2928 patients, met our inclusion criteria. No significant publication bias was identified. Pooled estimates showed that rectal indomethacin and diclofenac were associated with a significant reduction in the overall risk of PEP compared with control intervention [relative risk (RR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–0.83] in average‐risk patients. Subgroup analyses showed that both rectal indomethacin (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49–0.94) and diclofenac (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.23–0.75) were effective in the prevention of PEP. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs in the prevention of PEP (RR = 1.607; 95% CI: 0.824–3.136). The updated meta‐analysis suggests that both drugs provide equivalent protection against PEP in average‐risk patients.

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Underutilization of prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent for prevention of post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Incidence of Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges from 1 % to 10 % in unselected patients and as high as 25 % to 30 % in high-risk patients. Rectal indomethacin administered before or immediately after an ERCP and prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement (PPS) are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PEP. We sought to investigate the utilization rate for prophylactic rectal indomethacin and PPS in average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP between 2014 and 2019. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective analysis in the IBM Explorys database, a pooled, national de-identified clinical database of over 72 million unique patients from 26 health care networks and 300 hospitals across the United States from 2014 to 2019. Average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP were identified using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) diagnosis codes. PEP was defined by the presence of SNOMED CT diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and an inpatient admission within 5 days of an ERCP procedure. Results  Out of 31,050 adults who had undergone ERCP from 2014 to 2019, only 10,500 individuals (33.8 %) had a PEP prophylaxis. Rectal indomethacin and PPS accounted for 82.4 % and 12.9 % respectively. Individuals with three risk factors had the highest PEP rates followed by individuals with two risk factors. Conclusions  Only one-third of all patients undergoing ERCP received prophylaxis in the form of rectal indothemacin and/or PPS in this large population-based data. Increased implementation of prophylactic use is needed in patients undergoing ERCP as supported by current guidelines.

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

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

Goff Septotomy Is a Safe and Effective Salvage Biliary Access Technique Following Failed Cannulation at ERCP

BACKGROUND

Biliary cannulation is readily achieved in > 85% of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). When standard cannulation techniques fail, salvage techniques utilized include the needle knife precut, double wire technique, and Goff septotomy.

METHODS

Records of patients undergoing ERCP from 2005 to 2016 were retrospectively examined using a prospectively maintained endoscopy database. Patients requiring salvage techniques for biliary access were analyzed together with a control sample of 20 randomly selected index ERCPs per study year. Demographic and clinical variables including indications for ERCP, cannulation rates, and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 7984 patients underwent ERCP from 2005 to 2016. Biliary cannulation was successful in 94.9% of control index ERCPs, 87.2% of patients who underwent Goff septotomy (significantly higher than for all other salvage techniques, p ≤ 0.001), 74.5% of patients in the double wire group and 69.6% of patients in the needle knife precut group. Adverse event rates were similar in the Goff septotomy (4.1%) and index ERCP control sample (2.7%) groups. Adverse events were significantly higher in the needle knife group (27.2%) compared with all other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents the largest study to date of Goff septotomy as a salvage biliary access technique. It confirms the efficacy of Goff septotomy and indicates a safety profile similar to standard cannulation techniques and superior to the widely employed needle knife precut sphincterotomy. Our safety and efficacy data suggest that Goff septotomy should be considered as the primary salvage approach for failed cannulation, with needle knife sphincterotomy restricted to Goff septotomy failures.

Clinical outcomes and resource utilization analysis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The literature is lacking on associations of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) related outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of RA on clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

The National Inpatient Sample database was used to identify hospitalized patients who had underwent an ERCP study from 2012 to 2014 using International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Edition (ICD-9) codes. Primary outcomes were mortality, hospital charges, and length of stay. Secondary outcomes were ERCP-related complications. Chi-squared tests for categorical data and independent t-test for continuous data were utilized. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

There was 83 890 ERCP procedures performed, of which 970 patients had RA. In patients with RA, 74.2% were female, and the average age was 65.7 years. RA primary outcomes of mortality rate and hospital cost were lower and statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference in secondary outcomes except for lower cholecystectomy rates in RA patients.

CONCLUSION

With a high inflammatory state, it was hypothesized that RA would be associated with worse outcomes after ERCP. Yet, the primary outcomes of mortality and hospital cost were found to be lower than controls, with no difference in secondary outcomes. We posit that immunosuppressants used to treat RA provides a protective effect to overall complications with ERCP.

IS THERE A PLACE FOR CHOLANGIOSCOPIC EVALUATION OF BILIARY ANASTOMOTIC STRICTURE AFTER DECEASED DONOR LIVER TRANSPLANT?

BACKGROUND

Biliary complications remain one of the most important causes of morbidity and graft loss after liver transplant (LT). Endoscopic therapy of biliary complications has proven to be effective over time, leaving surgical treatment restricted to only very few cases. However, we cannot yet predict which patients will have the greatest potential to benefit from endoscopic treatment.

OBJECTIVE

On this premise we decide to conduct this study to evaluate the role and safety of single operator cholangioscopy (SOC) in the endoscopic treatment of post-LT biliary anastomotic strictures (AS).

METHODS

Between March/2016 and June/2017, 20 consecutive patients referred for endoscopic treatment for biliary anastomotic stricture were included in this prospective observational cohort study. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years old, and a deceased LT performed within at least 30 days. Exclusion criteria were non-anastomotic biliary stricture, biliary leakage, cast syndrome, any previous endoscopic therapy, pregnancy and inability to provide informed consent. All patients underwent SOC before endoscopic therapy with fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) and after stent removal.

RESULTS

At pre-treatment SOC, stricture orifice and fibrotic changes could be visualized in all patients, vascular changes and surgical sutures in 60% and acute inflammatory changes in 30%. SOC was essential for guidewire placement in five cases. FCSEMS was successfully deployed in all patients. Stricture resolution rate was 44.4% (median stent indwelling 372 days). Stricture recurrence was 12.5% (median follow-up of 543 days). Adverse events were distal (66.6%) and proximal (5.5%) stent migration, stent occlusion (16.6%), severe abdominal pain (10%) and mild acute pancreatitis (10%). SOC was repeated after FCSEMS removal. Post-treatment SOC showed fibrotic changes in all but one patient; vascular and acute inflammatory changes were less frequent in comparison to index procedure. The disappearance of suture material was remarkable. None of the cholangioscopic findings were statistically correlated to treatment outcome or stricture recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography with SOC is feasible in post-LT patients with AS. Cholangioscopic findings can be classified into fibrotic, vascular and acute inflammatory changes. Cholangioscopy may be helpful to assist guidewire passage, but Its overall role for changing management is post-LT patients was not demonstrated.

Diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of iatrogenic injury at the biliary-pancreatic-enteric junction

The biliary-pancreatic-enteric junction is prone to a variety of diseases, including calculi, inflammatory thickening, and tumors, which are easy to cause stenosis or obstruction and need timely treatment. Due to the complex anatomy and unique pathophysiological characteristics of the site, iatrogenic injuries are easy to occur during various examinations or treatment operations, and the injuries are often hidden and not easy to find intraoperatively. If not treated early, the injuries often cause serious consequences with a high mortality. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the causes, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of iatrogenic injury at the biliopancreatic junction. This article will discuss the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of iatrogenic injury at the biliary-pancreatic-enteric junction and summarize our diagnosis and treatment experience.

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

Backgrounds/Aims

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Low-dose rectal diclofenac does not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in low- or high-risk patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The most common adverse event following an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration has shown promise to reduce the risk of PEP in high-risk patients. However, in contrast to high-risk patients, the role of NSAID administration in patients with low risk remains controversial.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, single-center, single-blinded, two-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial to clarify the efficacy of low dose (50 mg) rectal NSAID administration for preventing PEP in at-risk patients. Patients scheduled to undergo ERCP were randomized into two groups, those with and without rectal administration of diclofenac. Patients in the diclofenac group received 50 mg of rectal diclofenac 30 min before undergoing ERCP. The primary endpoint was rate of PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 303 were randomized into the study groups. Four patients declined participation following randomization, and another two were withdrawn. As a result, a total of 147 patients were assigned to the diclofenac group and 150 to the control group. The baseline and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. The primary endpoint of PEP occurrence was seen in 13 of 297 patients (4.4%), including eight (5.4%) in the diclofenac group and five (3.3%) in the control group (P = 0.286). Additionally, those results were not significantly different when patients were classified as low or high risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic low-dose rectal diclofenac did not reduce the incidence of PEP following ERCP in patients classified as low or high risk.

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.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis with rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Acute pancreatitis is the most common and feared adverse event associated with performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Unremitting effort has been made for over 40 years to minimize the frequency and severity of this complication. Recently, the use of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have opened a new era for its prevention. This review focuses on the role of NSAIDs in pancreatitis, the pharmacokinetics of these agents, and summarizes the results of clinical trials with rectal NSAIDs alone and combination regimens in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP procedure. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are reported to be one protective pharmacological agent with great efficacy regarding this complication. Recently, more trails have addressed this issue and some inconsistent results appeared. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different rectal NSAIDs schemes to prevent PEP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies published on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science before November 2018 were reviewed, and those which met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. The preventions were divided as placebo/no treatment, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, post-ERCP rectal indomethacin, pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin, indomethacin using during ERCP, and pre-ERCP rectal naproxen. The main outcomes included the incidence of PEP and its severity. Other complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of network meta-analysis illustrated that compared with the control, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, and indomethacin were significantly associated with lower incidences of PEP. Moreover, it is notable that pre-ERCP rectal NSAIDs might reduce the severity of pancreatitis. Also, rectal NSAIDs may lead to less occurrence of asymptomatic hyperamylasemia. On the basis of the clustered ranking, pre-ERCP diclofenac appeared to be the superior intervention for PEP with satisfying efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that pre-ERCP diclofenac is the optimal prevention method for PEP. However, more high quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials and observational studies are expected in the future.

Primary Needle-Knife Fistulotomy Versus Conventional Cannulation Method in a High-Risk Cohort of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Successful biliary cannulation is a prerequisite and important component of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but conventional cannulation methods (CCMs) have a postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 14.1% in patients at high risk for PEP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of needle-knife fistulotomy (NKF), compared with a CCM, when used for primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP.

METHODS

A total of 207 patients with one or more risk factors for PEP were prospectively enrolled. The patients were randomly allocated to one of 2 groups according to the primary biliary cannulation technique (NKF or CCM). We compared biliary cannulation success rates, cannulation and procedure times, and the incidence of adverse events, including PEP, between the groups.

RESULTS

The mean number of PEP risk factors was similar between the groups (NKF, 2.2 ± 1.0; CCM, 2.2 ± 0.9). PEP occurred in 8 patients in the CCM group and in no patients in the NKF group (9.2% vs 0%, P < 0.001). The rates of other adverse events did not differ between the groups. The biliary cannulation success rate was high in the NKF group, but relatively low in the CCM group, possibly because of the stringent failure criteria aimed at reducing PEP. However, the mean cannulation and total procedural times were longer in the NKF group than in the CCM group.

DISCUSSION

NKF is an effective and safe procedure to gain primary biliary access in patients at high risk for developing PEP. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02916199.

A sodium alginate/feather keratin composite fiber with skin-core structure as the carrier for sustained drug release

To alleviate the serious gastrointestinal side reaction of indomethacin (IDM), sodium alginate/feather keratin (SA/FK) fiber with skin-core structure was prepared via wet spinning as the carrier for sustained release of IDM. Fourier translation infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy was adopted to investigate the reaction mechanism among SA, FK and IDM, and Ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectroscopy was used to systematically evaluate the sustained release capacity of SA/FK fiber in three simulated fluids. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) was employed to observe the apparent morphology of SA/FK fiber. The results indicate that, release amount of IDM exhibits an increase trend along with time; the release amount of IDM reaches 80% after 12 h in colon fluid and small intestinal fluid, and is less than 20% in digestive fluid. Simultaneously, FK can effectively control the release of IDM, and with the increase of FK content, IDM release time of the carrier fiber extends.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

American College of Gastroenterology.

Impact of electrical pulse cut mode during endoscopic papillectomy: Pilot randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic papillectomy is increasingly being used for ampullary adenoma treatment. However, it remains challenging despite increased safety with treatment advances. The ideal power output and electrosurgical current mode for mucosal resection are not established. We aimed to identify the ideal electrical pulse for use during resection.

METHODS

This pilot randomized, single-blind, prospective, multicenter trial, recruited patients with ampullary adenomas and conventional anatomy who were scheduled to undergo endoscopic papillectomy. Endoscopic treatment was performed using a standardized algorithm and patients were randomized for endoscopic papillectomy with Endocut or Autocut. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding. Incidence of procedure-related pancreatitis, successful complete resection, pathological findings, and other adverse events were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled over a 2-year period. The incidences of delayed bleeding (13.3% vs. 16.7%, P = 1.00) and pancreatitis (27% vs. 30%, P = 0.77) were similar between both groups. The rate of crush artifacts was higher in the Endocut than in the Autocut group (27% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.03). Immediate bleeding when resecting tumors greater than 14 mm in diameter was more common in the Autocut than in the Endocut group (88% vs. 46%, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The Autocut and Endocut modes have similar efficacy and safety for endoscopic papillectomy. The Endocut mode may prevent immediate bleeding in cases with large tumor sizes, although it causes more frequent crush artifacts.

REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Japanese UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR: 000021382).

Video education can improve awareness of risks for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a randomized trial aiming at improving patients' informed consent for undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in clinical care by comparing the efficacy of an additional educational video to written informed consent with that of written informed consent alone.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP were randomized to a video education or a control group. An educational video detailing ERCP procedure plus standard written informed consent was administered to the video education group, while the control group reviewed standard written informed consent only. The primary outcome was the patients' perception of the risk or possibility of ERCP complications. Their perception of the benefits of ERCP, alternative treatments and overall satisfaction with the process of informed consent were also compared.

RESULTS

In total 205 patients were included in the study (104 in the control group and 101 in the video education group). Patients' comprehension of ERCP-related complications in the video education group was significantly increased (P < 0.001), and these patients were more likely to correctly identify the incidence of such complications. Significantly more patients in the video education group were very satisfied with informed consent process (87.1% vs 76.0%, P = 0.040) and fewer patients needed additional explanations (31.7% vs 47.1%, P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

A supplementary educational video could greatly improve patient's understanding of ERCP procedure, in particular, its potential risks and complications, as well as their overall satisfaction with the process of informed consent (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02810379).

Identification and management of pancreas divisum

Introduction: Pancreas divisum is the most common congenital malformation of the pancreas with the majority asymptomatic. The etiological role, pathogenesis, clinical significance and management of pancreas divisum in pancreatic disease has not been clearly defined and our understanding is yet to be fully elucidated.Areas covered: This review describes the role of pancreas divisum in the development of pancreatic disease and the ambiguity related to it. In our attempt to offer clarity, a comprehensive search on PubMed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2019 was undertaken using key words "pancreas divisum", "idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis" and "chronic pancreatitis".Expert opinion: Current research fails to define a clear association between pancreas divisum and pancreatic disease. Though debatable, several studies do suggest a pathological role of pancreas divisum in pancreatic disease and a benefit of minor papilla therapy in the setting of acute recurrent pancreatitis. Surgical and endoscopic therapeutic modalities have not been directly compared. With the current data available, it would be imprudent to advise a definitive line of management for pancreatic disease associated with pancreas divisum and should involve a comprehensive discussion with the individual patient to define expectations before embarking on any medical and/or interventional therapy.

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.

Rectal Indomethacin and Spraying of Duodenal Papilla With Epinephrine Increases Risk of Pancreatitis Following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin and spraying of the duodenal papilla with epinephrine might reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a randomized trial to compare the effects of the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine (IE) vs indomethacin plus saline (IS) in prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at 10 centers in China, from February 2017 to October 2017, of 1158 patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were assigned randomly to groups given IE (n = 576) or IS (n = 582). All patients received a single dose of rectal indomethacin within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of dilute epinephrine (IE group) or saline (IS group) then was sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall PEP. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The study was terminated at the interim analysis for safety concerns and futility. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 49 patients in the IE group (8.5%) and in 31 patients in the IS group (5.3%) (relative risk, 1.60, 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .033). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients with postsphincterotomy bleeding (2.1% in the IE group and 1.5% in the IS group) and biliary infection (1.2% in the IE group and 2.2% in the IS group).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, we found the combination of rectal indomethacin with papillary epinephrine spraying increased the risk of PEP compared with indomethacin alone. Spray epinephrine should not be used with rectal indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT03057769.

A randomized trial comparing the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose administration of rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The before-procedure or after-procedure rectal indomethacin administration was shown to be useful in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We designed this prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose rectal indomethacin administration in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We enrolled patients who underwent the ERCP in Taipei Mackay Memorial Hospital from 2016 June to 2017 November. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: single and double-dose groups. The primary endpoint was the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

A total 162 patients participated in this study, and there were 87 patients randomly assigned to the single-dose group, and 75 patients were assigned to the double-dose group. In the high-risk patients, the incidence of PEP was lower in double-dose patients (4.8%) than the single-dose patients (9.5%), but there was no significant difference (P =.24). Difficult cannulation was the only 1 risk factor for PEP after rectal indomethacin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose rectal indomethacin administration immediately after ERCP in general population is good enough to prevent PEP, but difficult cannulation could induce the PEP frequency up to 15.4% even under rectal indomethacin use.

Global epidemiology and holistic prevention of pancreatitis

Knowledge of pancreatitis in the 20th century was shaped predominantly by animal data and clinical trials. Several large general population-based cohort studies and comprehensive systematic literature reviews in the 21st century have had a major effect on our understanding of pancreatitis and its sequelae. This Review provides precise and up-to-date data on the burden of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis and post-pancreatitis diabetes mellitus. Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency and altered bone metabolism following pancreatitis are also discussed. Furthermore, the article introduces a framework for the holistic prevention of pancreatitis with a view to providing guidance on strategies and intervention objectives at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. Concerted efforts by not only gastroenterologists and surgeons but also primary care physicians, endocrinologists, radiologists, pain specialists, dietitians, epidemiologists and public health specialists will be required to reduce meaningfully the burden of pancreatitis and its sequelae over the ensuing decades.

Split-dose or hybrid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and N-acetylcysteine therapy for prevention of post-retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Despite significant technical and training improvements, the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has not significantly dropped. Although many studies have evaluated the efficacy of various agents, e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, octreotide, antioxidants, administered via various dosages, routes (oral, intrarectal or parenteral), and schedules (before or after the procedure), the results have been conflicting.

AIM

To evaluate efficacy of three pharmacologic prophylactic methods for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center randomized trial, patients who underwent first-time ERCP for choledocholithiasis were randomly assigned to three groups. The first group received 600 mg N-acetylcysteine 15 min prior to ERCP, and per-rectum administration of 50 mg indomethacin both prior to and after completion of the ERCP. The second group was administered only the 50 mg indomethacin per-rectum both prior to and after the ERCP. The third group was administered per-rectum 100 mg indomethacin only after the ERCP, representing the control group given the guideline-recommended regimen. The primary end-point was PEP prevention.

RESULTS

Among the total 211 patients evaluated during the study, 186 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the protocol. The percentages of patients who developed PEP in each of the three groups were not significantly different (χ² = 2.793, P = 0.247). Among the acute PEP cases, for all groups, 14 patients developed mild pancreatitis (77.77%) and 4 moderate. No severe cases of PEP occurred, and in all PEP cases the resolution was favorable. No adverse events related to the medications (digestive hemorrhage, rectal irritation, or allergies) occurred.

CONCLUSION

The efficacies of split-dose indomethacin and combined administration (N-acetylcysteine with indomethacin) for preventing PEP were similar to that of the standard regimen.

Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Post-procedure Rectal Indomethacin

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP. Rectal indomethacin has been widely administered to decrease the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients. However, it cannot completely prevent the occurrence of PEP. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the risk factors for PEP in high-risk patients receiving post-ERCP indomethacin.

METHODS

From June 2012 to July 2015, patients undergoing ERCP and at high risk for PEP in three tertiary hospitals in China were enrolled. All patients received indomethacin after the procedure. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the risk factors.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety patients at high risk for PEP received post-ERCP indomethacin. The incidence of overall PEP and moderate-to-severe PEP was 8.0 and 1.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (OR 2.73; 95%CI 1.38-5.43; p = 0.004), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 4.53; 95%CI 1.60-12.81; p = 0.004), number of cannulation attempts ≥ 13 (OR 2.00; 95%CI 1.07-3.77; p = 0.030), inadvertent pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation ≥ 1 (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.04-4.90; p = 0.040), and pancreatic contrast injections ≥ 1 (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.02-5.23; p = 0.046) were high risk factors for overall PEP. For moderate-to-severe PEP, suspected SOD (OR 4.67; 1.19-18.35; p = 0.027), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 7.95; 1.39-44.97; p = 0.010), and more cannulation attempts (OR 3.71; 1.09-12.65; p = 0.036) were three independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of high-risk patients had PEP even receiving post-ERCP rectal indomethacin. The independent risk factors included suspected SOD, hilar stricture, more cannulation attempts, inadvertent PD cannulation, and PD contrast injections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02709421.

Issues on informed consent for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic operation with potential therapeutic risks. With the development of endoscopic techniques, the rate of performing ERCP is more and more higher and as a result, the rate of complications is increasing. Unfortunately, quite a few patients have little comprehension about the process of ERCP and its complications. This paper gives a brief overview of some issues on informed consent for ERCP.

What is impact of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Recently, although studies have investigated the role of NSAIDs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), selection of the ideal drug, the time and route of its administration for the appropriate population remain controversial.

Methods

A systematic search was done in sources including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from from August 1, 1990 to August 1, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing the prophylactic use of NSAIDs versus a placebo were included. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software to assess the outcomes.

Results

A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed that NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP (RR, 0.61, 95%CI,0.52–0.72; p < 0.00001). The analysis showed that indomethacin administration post-ERCP (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.70; p = 0.0002) appeared to be more effective in preventing PEP than indomethacin administration pre-ERCP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.79; P = 0.0003), but there was no significant difference between the high-risk and average-risk population(p = 0.13). In the diclofenac group, it was noted that administration of diclofenac pre-ERCP (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.63; p = 0.001) was more effective than that in post-ERCP (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.27–1.599; p = 0.35). The relative risk of PEP was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.27–1.50; p = 0.30) in high-risk patients and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.17–0.98; p = 0.02) in average-risk patients. With regard to the route of administration, PEP decreased significantly only in patients receiving the drug rectally (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44–0.63; p < 0.00001), but not for those who received intramuscularly (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47–1.17; p = 0.20), intravenously (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51–1.83; p = 0.93), and orally (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55–0.1.43; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

Rectal administration of NSAIDs (both indomethacin and diclofenac) was effective in preventing PEP in unselected patients. A single dose of indomethacin after ERCP might be effective in preventing PEP in both high-risk and average-risk patients. However, diclofenac administered rectally before ERCP might be protective against PEP in high-risk patients compared to a placebo. However, more high quality head-to-head RCTs are required.

Rectal Indomethacin Is Protective against Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim

Rectal indomethacin was reported to be effective for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis. However, the preventive effect of indomethacin for average-risk patients remains unclear. Recently, some conflicting evidence was addressed by recent articles. We aimed to determine the protective role of indomethacin in PEP based on the latest available literature.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify related articles published before October 2016. Studies that evaluated the administration of indomethacin in the prevention of PEP were included in the analysis. We adopted a random-effects model to calculate the overall relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ten trials from an initial search were finally included in the meta-analysis. The administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP in consecutive ERCP population (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.77). There was no significant heterogeneity across included studies (I² = 14.2%, P = 0.31). Further subgroup analyses also revealed that rectal indomethacin could protect the individuals at high and average risks and reduced severity of PEP. Pre-ERCP administration of indomethacin seemed to be better than the post-ERCP given. There was no evidence of significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Rectal administration of indomethacin is an effective approach to prevent the incidence of PEP in both high- and average-risk populations undergoing ERCP. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to further investigate the optimal timing for the administration of indomethacin.

Different pattern of risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with biliary stricture

OBJECTIVE

To identify possible risk factors associated with post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in biliary stricture (BS), common bile duct stone (CBDS) and unselected patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Consecutive ERCP patients with native papilla from January 2010 to December 2014 in Xijing Hospital were eligible. Patient-related and procedure-related parameters were collected retrospectively. The primary outcome was PEP. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Totally 3133 unselected patients were included. 695 (22.2%) had BS alone and 1893 (60.4%) had CBDS alone. PEP incidence was higher in BS group compared with CBDS group (6.8% vs. 3.8%, p = .001). Among patient-related factors, duodenal stenosis (OR, 2.74; 95%CI, 1.14-6.59) and hilar stricture (OR, 2.59; 95%CI, 1.41-4.77) were found to be independently associated with PEP in BS group. While female gender (OR, 2.11; 95%CI, 1.20-3.73) and normal total bilirubin (OR, 1.93; 95%CI, 1.13-3.32) were related to PEP in CBDS group. Among procedure-related factors, cannulation time ≥ 5 min (OR, 2.38; 95%CI, 1.06-5.33) and precut (OR, 3.20; 95%CI, 1.35-7.59) was respectively the only independent risk factor for PEP in BS and CBDS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BS and CBDS had different patterns of patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP. The prophylaxis of PEP may need to be individualized based on different indications.

Pre-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have reported that peri-procedural administration of rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Based on these studies, gastrointestinal (GI) societies recommend prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP. However, recent studies have reported contradictory results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in unselected patients who received rectal indomethacin before the ERCP (pre-ERCP) compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through September 1, 2017) to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the role of pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin in reducing the risk of PEP in unselected patients undergoing ERCP. The databases included Ovid, Medline, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science. We calculated a pooled estimate of the RR of PEP in patients who received pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 2229 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 1143 patients in the rectal indomethacin group and 1086 patients in the rectal placebo group. There were 71 events of PEP in the rectal indomethacin group and 114 events of PEP in the rectal placebo group. Pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the risk of PEP compared to pre-ERCP rectal placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; p<0.0001). There was no heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 0).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis support the routine pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to prevent PEP.

Indomethacin and diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diclofenac and indomethacin are the most studied drugs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, there are no prospective, randomized multicenter trials with a sufficient number of patients for correct evaluation of their efficacy. Our aim was to evaluate all prospective trials published in full text that studied the efficacy of diclofenac or indomethacin and were controlled with placebo or non-treatment for the prevention of PEP in adult patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

Systematic search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane) for relevant studies published from inception to 30 June 2016.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis of 4741 patients from 17 trials showed that diclofenac or indomethacin significantly decreased the risk ratio (RR) of PEP to 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P = .0001), number needed to treat (NNT) was 20, and the reduction of RR of moderate to severe PEP was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43-0.97; P = .0339). The efficacy of indomethacin compared with diclofenac was similar (P = .98). The efficacy of indomethacin or diclofenac did not differ according to timing (P = .99) or between patients with average-risk and high-risk for PEP (P = .6923). The effect of non-rectal administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was not significant (P = .1507), but the rectal route was very effective (P = .0005) with an NNT of 19. The administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was avoided in patients with renal failure. Substantial adverse events were not detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of rectally administered diclofenac or indomethacin before or closely after ERCP is inexpensive and safe and is recommended in every patient (without renal failure) undergoing ERCP. (Registration number: CRD42016042726, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.).

Rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in unselected patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis in unselected patients remained controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients.

METHODS

An electronic literature search in the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed was carried out for randomized controlled trials comparing rectal indomethacin or diclofenac with placebo in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate methodological quality. The data were carried out in forest plots using fixed-effect methods, and random-effect methods were used when heterogeneity was significant.

RESULTS

A total of nine trials were included in our final analysis. Rectal NSAIDs were effective to reduce the incidence of PEP in unselected patients (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79), especially for moderate-to-severe PEP (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.79). Both indomethacin (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88) and diclofenac (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69) were significantly efficacious. Rectal NSAIDs given pre-ERCP showed significant efficacy (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.71), whether when given within 30 min pre-ERCP (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92) or not (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67).

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs are effective in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients.

Efficacy and safety of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not commonly used clinically for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for post-ERCP prophylaxis, we systematically reviewed sixteen randomized controlled trials (involving 6458 patients) that compared rectal NSAIDs with placebo or no treatment for post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis updated to August 2016. GRADE framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. There was “high quality” evidence that rectal NSAIDs were associated with significant reduction in the risk of overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42–0.71). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that diclofenac (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19–0.90) was probably superior to indomethacin (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45–0.75), post-ERCP administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.89) was probably superior to pre-ERCP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.67), and that mixed-risk population received more benefits (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33–0.88) than average-risk population (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41–0.88), but less than high-risk population (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19–0.91). Moreover, “high quality” evidence showed that rectal NSAIDs were safe when given as a standard dose (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47–1.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed that rectal NSAIDs are effective and safe in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in populations with all levels of risk.