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

Development and external validation of a nomogram for prediction of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely performed for management of pancreatobiliary diseases; however, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains as an unsolved problem. Although various risk factors for PEP have been reported, the prediction of PEP remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a predictive model for PEP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP for biliary indications at two centers were retrospectively studied. Using data from a training cohort, we utilized a multivariable model to select five variables to construct a nomogram. The predictive model was internally and externally validated. Based on the nomogram, the patients were categorized into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

Using the data of 2224 patients in the training cohort, five variables were selected to generate a nomogram: 1) sex, 2) indication for ERCP, 3) difficult cannulation, 4) guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, and 5) endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The most significant risk factor was endoscopic papillary balloon dilation such as endoscopic sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty. The bias-corrected concordance index was 0.72 in the training cohort and 0.72 in the validation cohort. Calibration curves for both cohorts demonstrated good agreement between the predicted and observed frequencies of the actual outcome. In the validation cohort, PEP developed in 5.0% and 14% of patients in the moderate- and high-risk groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully developed a good predictive model for PEP. The prevention of PEP in high risk patients should be investigated further.

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.

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

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

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).

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glyceryl trinitrate, or combinations for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common and severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent evidence suggests that combinations based on rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are more beneficial in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have also demonstrated the efficacy of glyceryl trinitrate (GTN). We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

AIM

To compare NSAIDs and GTN for prevention of PEP and to determine whether they are better in combination.

METHODS

A systematic search was done for full-text RCTs of PEP in PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for eligible RCTs. The major data were extracted by two independent reviewers. The frequentist model was used to conduct this network meta-analysis and obtain the pairwise OR and 95%CI. The data were then extracted and assessed on the basis of the Reference Citation Analysis (https://www.referencecitationanalysis.com/).

RESULTS

Twenty-four eligible RCTs were selected, evaluating seven preventive strategies in 9416 patients. Rectal indomethacin 100 mg plus sublingual GTN (OR: 0.21, 95%CI: 0.09–0.50), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0.34, 0.18–0.65), sublingual GTN (0.34, 0.12–0.97), and rectal indomethacin 100 mg (0.49, 0.33–0.73) were all more efficacious than placebo in preventing PEP. The combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual GTN had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) probability of (92.2%) and was the best preventive strategy for moderate-to-severe PEP with a SUCRA probability of (89.2%).

CONCLUSION

Combination of rectal indomethacin 100 mg with sublingual GTN offered better prevention of PEP than when used alone and could alleviate the severity of PEP.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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