Rectal indomethacin should be used routinely in all patients for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Management of Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) remains a rare but potentially devastating chronic, cholestatic liver disease. PSC causes obstruction of intra- and/or extra-hepatic bile ducts by inflammation and fibrosis, leading to biliary obstruction, cirrhosis and portal hypertension with all associated sequelae. The most dreaded consequence of PSC is cholangiocarcinoma, occurring in 10-20% of patients with PSC, and with population-based estimates of a 398-fold increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC compared to the general population. We use the 4-D approach to endoscopic evaluation and management of PSC based on currently available evidence. After laboratory testing with liver chemistries and high-quality cross-sectional imaging with MRCP, the first D is Dominant stricture diagnosis and evaluation. Second, Dilation of strictures found during ERCP is performed using balloon dilation to as many segments as possible. Third, Dysplasia and cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis is performed by separated brushings for conventional cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and consideration for direct cholangioscopy with SpyGlass™. Fourt and finally, Dosing of antibiotics is critical to prevent peri-procedural cholangitis. The aim of this review article is to explore endoscopic tools and techniques for the diagnosis and management of PSC and provide a practical approach for clinicians.