Rectal NSAIDs for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effectiveness of the pharmacological therapy to prevent post ERCP acute pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness of the different pharmacological agents in preventing post-ERCP acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

We included clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. The event evaluated was acute pancreatitis. We conducted a search strategy in MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to nowadays. We reported the information in terms of relative risks (RR) with a 95% confidence interval. We assessed the heterogeneity using the I2 test.

RESULTS

We included 84 studies for analysis (30,463 patients). The mean age was 59.3 years (SD ± 7.01). Heterogeneity between studies was low (I2 = 34.4%) with no inconsistencies (p = 0.2567). Post ERCP pancreatitis was less in prophylaxis with NSAIDs (RR 0.65 95% CI [0.52 to 0.80]), aggressive hydration with Lactate Ringer (RR 0.32 95% CI [0.12-0.86]), NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate (RR 0.28 95% CI [0.11-0.71]) and somatostatin and analogues (RR 0.54 [0.43 to 0.68]) compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

NSAIDs, the Combination of NSAIDs + isosorbide dinitrate, somatostatin and analogues, and aggressive hydration with lactate ringer are pharmacological strategies that can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis when compared to placebo. More clinical trials are required to determine the effectiveness of these drugs.

The preventive effect of tacrolimus on patients with post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background/Aims

In patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), calcineurin activates zymogen, which results in pancreatitis. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

Methods

This was a prospective pilot study in which patients who underwent ERCP received tacrolimus (4 mg in two divided doses); this was the Tac group. A contemporaneous cohort of patients was included as a control group. All patients were followed-up for PEP. PEP was characterized by worsening abdominal pain with an acute onset, elevated pancreatic enzymes, and a duration of hospital stay of more than 48 hours. Serum tacrolimus levels were measured immediately before the procedure in the Tac group.

Results

There were no differences in the baseline characteristics between the Tac group (n=48) and the control group (n=51). Only four out of 48 patients (8.3%) had PEP in the Tac group compared to eight out of 51 patients (15.7%) who had PEP in the control group. The mean trough tacrolimus level in patients who developed PEP was significantly lower (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Oral tacrolimus at a cumulative dose of 4 mg safely prevents PEP. Further randomized controlled studies are warranted to establish the role of tacrolimus in this context.

Optimal timing of rectal diclofenac in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients and methods  We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance. Results  We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P  = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P  = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P  = 0.002). Conclusions  Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis assessed using criteria for acute pancreatitis

Background and Aim

International consensus on the definition and classification of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has been reached. However, the diagnosis and severity of PEP are often assessed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for acute pancreatitis (AP). This study determined the incidence, severity, and risk factors of PEP diagnosed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP in a large cohort.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted at five high-volume centers included 1932 patients who underwent ERCP-related procedures. The incidence, severity, and risk factors for PEP were evaluated.

Results

PEP occurred in 142 patients (7.3%); it was mild in 117 patients (6.0%) and severe in 25 patients (1.3%). According to the Cotton criteria, PEP occurred in 87 patients (4.5%); it was mild in 54 patients (2.8%), moderate in 20 patients (1.0%), and severe in 13 patients (0.7%). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.239; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.546-3.243), naïve papilla (OR 3.047; 95% CI 1.803-5.150), surgically-altered gastrointestinal anatomy (OR 2.538; 95% CI 1.342-4.802), procedure time after reaching the papilla (OR 1.009; 95% CI 1.001-1.017), pancreatic duct injection (OR 2.396; 95% CI 1.565-3.669), and intraductal ultrasonography (OR 1.641; 95% CI 1.024-2.629) were independent risk factors.

Conclusion

According to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP, the incidence of PEP was higher than that according to the Cotton criteria and the severity of PEP tended to be severe.

Nafamostat Mesylate is Not Effective in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with complications such as post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Protease inhibitors, including nafamostat mesylate (NM), have been evaluated for prophylaxis against PEP.

AIM

We describe the first multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing the prophylactic efficacy of NM against PEP.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective study, we aimed to enroll 800 patients aged ≥ 20 years with a planned ERCP between December 2012 and March 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of PEP in patients who did not receive NM (non-NM) versus those who did (NM; 20 mg). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PEP by NM initiation (pre- and post-ERCP), risk factors for PEP, and NM-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Only 441 of the planned 800 patients were enrolled (non-NM: n = 149; NM: n = 292 [pre-ERCP NM: n = 144; post-ERCP NM: n = 148]). Patient characteristics were balanced at baseline with no significant differences between groups. PEP occurred in 40/441 (9%) patients (non-NM: n = 15 [10%]; NM: n = 25 [9%]), including 17 (12%) and eight (8%) in the pre-ERCP and post-ERCP NM groups, respectively. In the NM group, the incidence of PEP was lower in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group. Pancreatic injection and double-guidewire technique were independent risk factors for PEP. NM-related adverse events of hyperkalemia occurred in two (0.7%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for the prophylactic effect of NM against PEP, regardless of the timing of administration; however, further studies are needed.

A systematic review of NSAIDs treatment for acute pancreatitis in animal studies and clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are frequently given to patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) for controlling pain, but their efficacy in treating AP, particularly in reducing systemic complications, remains unclear.

AIM

The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs in treating AP and its systematic complications.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers screened articles from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane and scored the quality of each study according to the CAMARADES 10-item quality checklist or the Jadad scale. Five endpoints were chosen to evaluate the effect of NSAIDs in animal studies: amylase and lipase levels, proinflammatory cytokines, oxidative damage, histopathological changes, and mortality rate. Meanwhile, in clinical studies, endpoints, such as proinflammatory cytokines, pain relief, systematic complications, mortality, and adverse events were used.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies out of 17,845 were identified and included. Of these 36 studies, only 5 were clinical trials involving 580 patients, and the remaining 31 were animal studies with 1623 rats or mice. 24 studies focused on the treatment of AP with NSAIDs and 12 on AP-associated systematic complications. Both preclinical and clinical studies showed that NSAIDs may have beneficial effects against AP-related injuries. 9 of the 14 preclinical studies stated that NSAIDs reduced the serum amylase level significantly, and 6 of 7 showed that NSAIDs lowered the lipase level markedly. 17 experimental studies all demonstrated that NSAIDs reduced the inflammation. Histopathological examinations indicated that NSAIDs significantly improved the histopathological damages. Similarly, clinical evidence showed that NSAIDs are effective in suppressing proinflammatory cytokines, relieving pain, ameliorating systematic complications and reducing mortality. In the included 5 clinical studies, serious adverse events associated with NSAIDs were rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows that NSAIDs are a potential treatment for AP-related injuries based on the current preclinical and clinical evidences.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

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.

Diclofenac does not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends rectal indomethacin or diclofenac before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, data on the prophylactic effect in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are lacking.

METHODS

This was a retrospective case-control study. In 2009-2018, a total of 2000 ERCPs were performed in 931 patients with PSC. Case procedures (N = 1000 after November 2013) were performed after administration of rectal diclofenac. Control procedures (N = 1000 before November 2013) were performed with the same indication but without diclofenac. Acute post-ERCP pancreatitis and other ERCP-related adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 49 (4.9%) procedures in the diclofenac group and 62 (6.2%) procedures in the control group (p = 0.241). No difference existed between the groups in terms of the severity of pancreatitis or any other acute AEs. The risk of pancreatitis was elevated in patients with native papilla: 11.4% in the diclofenac group and 8.7% in the control group (p = 0.294). In adjusted logistic regression, diclofenac did not reduce the risk of pancreatitis (odds ratio (OR) = 1.074, 95% confidence interval 0.708-1.629, p = 0.737). However, in generalised estimation equations with the advanced model, diclofenac seemed to diminish the risk of pancreatitis (OR = 0.503) but not significantly (p = 0.110).

CONCLUSION

In this large patient cohort in a low-risk unit, diclofenac does not seem to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with PSC. The trend in the pancreatitis rate after ERCP is decreasing. The evaluation of the benefits of diclofenac among PSC patients warrants a randomised controlled study targeted to high-risk patients and procedures.

Serum lipase as a biomarker for early prediction and diagnosis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Lipase is one of the diagnostic criteria for acute pancreatitis; however, the value of serum lipase in the early prediction and diagnosis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis remains controversial.

AIMS

We evaluate the 3-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities for early prediction of postoperative pancreatitis (PEP) and compare the 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities in the diagnosis of PEP.

METHODS

Clinical information of patients who underwent ERCP from January 2017 to December 2018 at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were performed for 3-h and 24-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase activities to evaluate predictive and diagnostic values, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 498 cases with ERCP were finally enrolled, in which 36 cases of PEP were confirmed. ROC curves for 3-h post-ERCP amylase and lipase activities depicted areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.88 (P < 0.001, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.82-0.93) and 0.90 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.86-0.93), respectively. The difference showed no significance using Z test (Z = 0.69, P > 0.05). AUCs for 24-h amylase and lipase activities were 0.83 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.77-0.89) and 0.94 (P < 0.001, 95% CI 0.90-0.99), respectively, and the difference was significant (Z = 3.04, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For early prediction of PEP, 3-h post-ERCP serum lipase activity is at least as good as that of amylase. For diagnosis of PEP, 24-h post-ERCP serum lipase is a much better indicator than that of amylase. Together, this study suggests that serum lipase should be given priority in the early prediction and diagnosis of PEP.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus placebo for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary therapeutic procedure for treatment of diseases that affect the biliary tree and pancreatic duct. While the therapeutic success rate of ERCP is high, the procedure can cause complications, such as acute pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, and perforation. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing PEP following (ERCP). Materials and methods  We searched databases, such as MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of NSAIDs and placebo for the prevention of PEP were included. Outcomes assessed included incidence of PEP, severity of pancreatitis, route of administration, and type of NSAIDs. Results  Twenty-one RCTs were considered eligible with a total of 6854 patients analyzed. Overall, 3427 patients used NSAIDs before ERCP and 3427 did not use the drugs (control group). In the end, 250 cases of acute pancreatitis post-ERCP were diagnosed in the NSAIDs group and 407 cases in the placebo group. Risk for PEP was lower in the NSAID group (risk difference (RD): -0.05; 95 % confidence interval (CI): -0.07 to - 0.03; number need to treat (NNT), 20; P  < 0.05). Use of NSAIDs effectively prevented mild pancreatitis compared with use of placebo (2.5 % vs. 4.1 %; 95 % CI, -0.05 to - 0.01; NNT, 33; P  < 0.05), but the information on moderate and severe PEP could not be completely elucidated. Only rectal administration reduced incidence of PEP (6.8 % vs. 13 %; 95 % CI, -0.10 to - 0.04; NNT, 20; P  < 0.05). Furthermore, only diclofenac or indomethacin use was effective in preventing PEP. Conclusions  Rectal administration of diclofenac and indomethacin significantly reduced risk of developing mild PEP. Further RCTs are needed to compare efficacy between NSAID administration pathways in prevention of PEP after ERCP.

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.

Acute Pancreatitis After Laparoscopic Transcystic Common Bile Duct Exploration: An Analysis of Predisposing Factors in 447 Patients

INTRODUCTION

In laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration (LTCBDE), the risk of acute pancreatitis (AP) is well recognized. The present study assesses the incidence, risk factors, and clinical impact of AP in patients with choledocholithiasis treated with LTCBDE.

METHODS

A retrospective database was completed including patients who underwent LTCBDE between 2007 and 2017. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

After exclusion criteria, 447 patients were identified. There were 70 patients (15.7%) who showed post-procedure hyperamylasemia, including 20 patients (4.5%) who developed post-LTCBDE AP. Of these, 19 were edematous and one was a necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients with post-LTCBDE AP were statistically more likely to have leukocytosis (p < 0.004) and jaundice (p = 0.019) before surgery and longer operative times (OT, p < 0.001); they were less likely to have incidental intraoperative diagnosis (p = 0.031) or to have biliary colic as the reason for surgery (p = 0.031). In the final multivariate model, leukocytosis (p = 0.013) and OT (p < 0.001) remained significant predictors for AP. Mean postoperative hospital stay (HS) was significantly longer in AP group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The risk of AP is moderate and should be considered in patients with preoperative leukocytosis and jaundice and exposed to longer OT. AP has a strong impact on postoperative HS.

How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Recent advances in prophylaxis have improved but not eliminated this problem, underscoring the importance of ongoing research toward this goal. This review aims to provide an evidence-based approach to post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention through patient selection, risk stratification, procedural technique, and multimodality prophylaxis, and discusses ongoing and future research initiatives in this important area.

Rectal Indomethacin Prevents Moderate to Severe Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Death and Should Be Used Before the Procedure: A Meta-Analysis of Aggregate Subgroup Data

Background

Despite overall evidence in the literature favoring rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), its role in preventing potentially fatal complications is not well explored.

Method

A comprehensive electronic literature search was done to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rectal indomethacin and placebo in preventing PEP. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Statistical heterogeneity was characterized. Random effect model meta-analysis was used. Several subgroup, sensitivity and aggregate subgroup data analyses were completed based on specific risk factors or patient characteristics to identify patient populations who may benefit most from rectal indomethacin.

Results

A total of eight out of 336 trials published between 2007 and 2016 (n=3324) were included. Analysis showed administering rectal indomethacin before rather than during or after ERCP significantly reduced PEP rates (odds ratio (OR): 0.56 [0.40-079]). Rectal indomethacin also significantly decreased the rate of moderate to severe PEP and death amongst all patients (OR: 0.53 [0.31-0.89] and 0.10 [0.02-0.65], respectively). Rectal indomethacin significantly prevented PEP in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (OR: 0.49 [0.30-0.78]) and those undergoing biliary sphincterotomy (OR: 0.63 [0.42-0.95]), but not in those undergoing precut or pancreatic sphincterotomy or prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Sensitivity analysis showed that the effect remained significant after two studies with high risk of bias were excluded.

Conclusion

Rectal indomethacin significantly decreases the occurrence of moderate to severe PEP and death in all patients, only if given before the procedure.

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy

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

Use of NSAIDs via the Rectal Route for the Prevention of Pancreatitis after ERCP in All-Risk Patients: An Updated Meta-Analysis

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of the rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We searched database for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing periprocedural rectal administration of NSAIDs with placebo for the prevention of PEP. The rectal administration of NSAIDs significantly decreased the incidence of PEP in the whole patient population (odds ratio (OR): 0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30–0.64, P < 0.0001), high-risk patients (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.19–0.58, P = 0.0001), and all-risk patients (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31–0.84, P = 0.008). The incidence of PEP was reduced by indomethacin (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.36–0.82, P = 0.004) and diclofenac (OR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15–0.46, P < 0.00001). The administration of NSAIDs before (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25–0.73, P = 0.002) or after (OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.27–0.56, P < 0.00001) ERCP reduced PEP. The NSAIDs were associated with a reduction in mild PEP (OR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.36–0.83, P = 0.004) and moderate-to-severe PEP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.28–0.79, P = 0.004). The rectal administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk and all-risk patients.

Does rectal diclofenac reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis? A district general hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy in the literature recently regarding the efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of PEP in three distinct groups of patients at the Royal United Hospital, Bath: no use of rectal diclofenac, selective use and blanket use without contraindication.

METHOD

Readmission data, blood results, radiology reports and discharge summaries were used to identify patients with PEP from August 2010 to December 2015. The administration of rectal diclofenac postprocedure was recorded from the endoscopy reporting system.

RESULTS

1318 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) were performed by four endoscopists during the study period with 66 (5.0%) cases of pancreatitis. 445 ERCPs were performed prior to the introduction of NSAID use during which time, with an incidence of 35 (7.9%) episodes of PEP. During the selective period of NSAID use (high-risk patients) 539 ERCPs were performed and 72 (13.4%) patients received NSAIDs. 17 (3.2%) developed PEP. 334 ERCPs were performed when NSAIDs were given to all patients without contraindication. 289 (86.5%) of patients received rectal diclofenac and 13 (3.9%) developed pancreatitis. There is a statistically significant decrease in PEP comparing the groups of patients receiving NSAIDs selectively (p=0.0009) or routinely (p=0.0172) when compared with none. There is no difference between the selective and routine group (p=0.571).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the introduction of a selective or routine use of NSAIDs for PEP in a District General Hospital (DGH) significantly decreases the risk of pancreatitis (risk reduction 43.7%).

Rectally administered indomethacin to prevent post-ESWL-pancreatitis (RIPEP): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (P-ESWL) is the first-line therapy for large pancreatic duct stones. Although it is a highly effective and safe procedure for the fragmentation of pancreatic stones, it is still not complication-free. Just like endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), pancreatitis is the most common complication. To date, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have proven to be the only effective prophylactic medication for post-ERCP pancreatitis and the European, American and Japanese Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines have recommended prophylactic rectally administered indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP. Given the little research about effective prevention for post P-ESWL pancreatitis, we aim to determine whether rectally administered indomethacin can reduce post-ESWL-pancreatitis.

METHODS/DESIGN

The RIPEP study is a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. One thousand three hundred and seventy patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic stones (>5 mm in diameter) treated with P-ESWL at Changhai Hospital will be randomly allocated to rectally administered indomethacin or placebo therapy before the procedure. The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ESWL pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include the severity of pancreatitis, occurrence rate of asymptomatic hyperamylasemia and other complications.

DISCUSSION

The RIPEP trial is designed to show that rectally administered indomethacin reduces the development and severity of post-ESWL pancreatitis and benefits patients treated with P-ESWL.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02797067 . Registered on 17 November 2016.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in significant morbidity, occasional mortality, and increased health-care expenditure. Accordingly, the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical and research priority. Strategies to reduce the incidence of PEP include thoughtful patient selection, appropriate risk-stratification, sound procedural technique, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pharmacoprevention. Despite advances in all these areas, however, the incidence of PEP remains as high as 15% in high-risk cases. Thus, additional research towards the goal of eliminating PEP is necessary. Herein is an evidence-based review of strategies to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP, focusing on recent important developments in the field.

Diclofenac Does Not Reduce the Risk of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in Low-Risk Units

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have an inhibitory role in pathogenesis of pancreatitis. Guidelines from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommend routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before or after ERCP for all patients without contraindications.

AIMS

Our aim was to evaluate the effect of diclofenac in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a high-volume, low-PEP-risk ERCP unit.

METHODS

The rate and severity of PEP were compared in groups of 1000 historical controls prior to the routine use of diclofenac and in 1000 patients receiving 100 mg diclofenac before ERCP.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 56 (2.8%) of the 2000 patients, and the rate of the pancreatitis was 2.8% in control group and 2.8% in diclofenac group (p = 1.000). The PEP rate among the native papilla patients was 3.9% in control group and 3.6% in diclofenac group (p = 0.803). In subgroup analysis of patients with a high risk of PEP, diclofenac neither prevented PEP nor made its course milder.

CONCLUSIONS

In an unselected patient population in a center with a low incidence of PEP, diclofenac seems to have no beneficial effect.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs administration is effective for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Whether the prophylactic administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) peri-ERCP is effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of rectal NSAIDs on PEP.

METHODS

A systematic search of literature databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science) was performed to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Jadad score for assessing risk of bias was used to evaluate the quality of included studies. The primary endpoint of the study was efficacy for PEP prevention. Sub-analyses were performed to determine the risk reduction for different NSAID types, for general vs. high-risk patients, by timing of administration and for moderate to severe PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs, including a total of 3989 patients, were identified and included in the analysis. The risk of PEP was lower in the NSAIDs group than in the placebo group (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.43-0.64; P < 0.01). The risk of moderate to severe PEP was also lower in the NSAIDs group. (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.28-0.69; P < 0.01). There was no difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac, nor between pre-ERCP and post-ERCP administration timing of rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSIONS

A single rectal dose of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP both in high-risk and in unselected patients, regardless of timing of administration (pre- or post-ERCP) and NSAID type (indomethacin or diclofenac).

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/.).

Prophylactic rectal indomethacin may be ineffective for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in general patients: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Efficacy of prophylactic indomethacin for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in general patients remains controversial. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis of clinical trials specifically on rectal indomethacin in prevention of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials on rectal indomethacin in the prevention of PEP in consecutive patients undergoing ERCP. Primary outcome was the overall rate of PEP. Secondary outcomes were the overall rates of moderate to severe PEP and mild PEP.

RESULTS

Six studies, with a total of 2473 patients, were included. Overall rate of PEP was 7% (95% CI, 6-9%). No statistical difference was observed in overall rates of PEP (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46-1.00, P = 0.050) and, additionally, rates of moderate to severe (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.28-1.56, P = 0.345) or mild (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.45-1.10, P = 0.127) PEP between indomethacin and placebo.

CONCLUSION

In a contemporary meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not show significant prevention effect of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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.

How to select patients and timing for rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Acute pancreatitis is a severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Previous meta-analyses have shown that indomethacin effectively prevents this complication; however, the data are limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify the applications for rectal indomethacin.

Methods

A systematic search was performed in June 2016. Human prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trials that compared rectally administered indomethacin with a placebo for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were included. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to assess the outcomes (PEP) using Review Manager 5.0.

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 3013). The overall incidence of PEP was significantly lower after prophylactic administration of rectal indomethacin than after administration of the placebo (RR, 0.58, 95% CI, 0.40–0.83; P = 0.004). A subgroup analysis was performed for rectal indomethacin administration compared to a placebo in high-risk patients (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32–0.65; P < 0.00001) and average-risk patients (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.46–1.22; P = 0.25) and for administration before ERCP (RR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39–0.79; P = 0.001) and after the procedure (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.26–1.44; P = 0.26).

Conclusions

This meta-analysis indicated that prophylactic rectal indomethacin is not suitable for all patients undergoing ERCP but it is safe and effective to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In addition, rectal indomethacin administration before ERCP is superior to its administration after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12876-017-0599-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The "Scope" of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

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

Vigorous Periprocedural Hydration With Lactated Ringer's Solution Reduces the Risk of Pancreatitis After Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Vigorous intravenous fluid resuscitation (IVFR) was reported to reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in a pilot study. We performed a randomized, double-blind controlled trial to establish whether periprocedural vigorous IVFR reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

A total of 510 patients with native papilla at 3 tertiary referral centers in Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given vigorous IVFR (lactated Ringer's solution in an initial bolus of 10 mL/kg before the procedure, 3 mL/kg/h during the procedure, for 8 hours after the procedure, and a post-procedure bolus of 10 mL/kg) or a standard IVFR (lactated Ringer's solution at 1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 hours after the procedure). The primary end point of the study was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the secondary end point was severity of pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and fluid overload.

RESULTS

The main indications for ERCP were choledocholithiasis (58%) and malignant biliary stricture (27%). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 11 patients in the vigorous IVFR group (4.3%) and 25 patients in the standard IVFR group (9.8%) (relative risk, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.86; P = .016). Moderate or severe acute pancreatitis occurred in a significantly smaller proportion of patients in the vigorous IVFR group (0.4%) than in the standard IVFR group (2.0%; P = .040). One patient in the vigorous IVFR group developed peripheral edema.

CONCLUSIONS

In a double-blind, randomized controlled trial, we found vigorous periprocedural intravenous hydration with lactated Ringer's solution to reduce the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in average-risk and high-risk cases. IVFR is not associated with increased adverse events. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02308891.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rectal indomethacin is a popular chemopreventive agent to help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Previous meta-analyses have shown an overall protective effect for PEP in average-risk and high-risk patients. However, these meta-analyses are limited by a small number of studies. Recently, more trials have been published addressing this issue. The aim is to determine whether rectal indomethacin prevents PEP in average-risk and high-risk groups, after incorporating these new data.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple literature databases in April 2016 was performed. Human prospective randomized controlled trials with placebo controls that examined the effect of rectally administered indomethacin on the incidence of PEP were included.

RESULTS

A total of 8 trials between 2007 and 2016 (n = 3778) were included. No significant publication bias existed. All studies used similar criteria to detect pancreatitis. Random effects model meta-analysis showed that the rate of PEP was significantly lower using indomethacin compared with placebo (relative risk, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.65; P < .001) in high-risk patients. There was no significant statistical or clinical heterogeneity. Among average-risk patients, the rate of PEP was similar (non-significant) between the indomethacin and placebo groups (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.07; P = .115). The result of the main outcome remained robust in multiple sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin given before or after ERCP is protective against PEP in high-risk patients versus placebo; however, it is not protective in average-risk patients versus placebo.

Routine pre-procedural rectal indometacin versus selective post-procedural rectal indometacin to prevent pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Rectal indometacin decreases the occurrence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the population most at risk and the optimal timing of administration require further investigation. We aimed to assess whether pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in all patients is more effective than post-procedural use in only high-risk patients to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at six centres in China. Eligible patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (with a computer-generated list) to universal pre-procedural indometacin or post-procedural indometacin in only high-risk patients, with stratification by trial centres and block size of ten. In the universal indometacin group, all patients received a single dose (100 mg) of rectal indometacin within 30 min before ERCP. In the risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin group, only patients at predicted high risk received rectal indometacin, immediately after ERCP. Investigators, but not patients, were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was overall ocurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02002650.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 15, 2013, and Sept 21, 2015, 2600 patients were randomly assigned to universal, pre-procedural indometacin (n=1297) or risk-stratified, post-procedural indometacin (n=1303). Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 47 (4%) of 1297 patients assigned to universal indometacin and 100 (8%) of 1303 patients assigned to risk-stratified indometacin (relative risk 0·47; 95% CI 0·34-0·66; p<0·0001). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 18 (6%) of 305 high-risk patients in the universal group and 35 (12%) of 281 high-risk patients in the risk-stratified group (p=0·0057). Post-ERCP pancreatitis was also less frequent in average-risk patients in the universal group (3% [29/992]), in which they received indometacin, than in the risk-stratified group (6% [65/1022]), in which they did not receive the drug (p=0·0003). Other than pancreatitis, adverse events occurred in 41 (3%; two severe) patients in the universal indometacin group and 48 (4%; one severe) patients in the risk-stratified group. The most common adverse events were biliary infection (22 [2%] patients vs 33 [3%] patients) and gastrointestinal bleeding (13 [1%] vs ten [1%]).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with a risk-stratified, post-procedural strategy, pre-procedural administration of rectal indometacin in unselected patients reduced the overall occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis without increasing risk of bleeding. Our results favour the routine use of rectal indometacin in patients without contraindications before ERCP.

FUNDING

National Key Technology R&D Program, National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Rectal Indomethacin Does Not Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Consecutive Patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is given to prevent pancreatitis in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines recently recommended prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis. We performed a randomized controlled trail to investigate the efficacy of this approach.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2013 through December 2014. Approximately 70% of the cohort were at average risk for PEP. Subjects were assigned randomly to groups given either a single 100-mg dose of rectal indomethacin (n = 223) or a placebo suppository (n = 226) during the procedure. The primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal pain, a lipase level more than 3-fold the upper limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the groups in baseline clinical or procedural characteristics. Sixteen patients in the indomethacin group (7.2%) and 11 in the placebo group (4.9%) developed PEP (P = .33). Complications and the severity of PEP were similar between groups. Per a priori protocol guidelines, the study was stopped owing to futility.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT01774604.

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP.

Methods/Design

The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked.

Discussion

The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough.

Trial registration

NCT02476279, registered June 2015.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the prophylactic role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

AIM: To critically appraise the published randomized, controlled trials on the prophylactic effectiveness of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), in reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

METHODS: A systematic literature search (MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library, from inception of the databases until May 2015) was conducted to identify randomized, clinical trials investigating the role of NSAIDs in reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Random effects model of the meta-analysis was carried out, and results were presented as odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95%CI.

RESULTS: Thirteen randomized controlled trials on 3378 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 1718 patients in the NSAIDs group and 1660 patients in non-NSAIDs group undergoing ERCP. The use of NSAIDs (through rectal route or intramuscular route) was associated with the reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis [OR, 0.52 (0.38-0.72), P = 0.0001]. The use of pre-procedure NSAIDs was effective in reducing approximately 48% incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, number needed to treat were 16 with absolute risk reduction of 0.05. But the risk of post-ERCP pancreattis was reduced by 55% if NSAIDs were administered after procedure. Similarly, diclofenac was more effective (55%) prophylactic agent compared to indomethacin (41%).

CONCLUSION: NSAIDs seem to have clinically proven advantage of reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Preventing Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Advances in risk-stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and discusses timely research questions in this important area.

Rectal indomethacin versus placebo to reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a controlled clinical trial

Background

Acute pancreatitis is the most common major complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many drugs have been evaluated for prophylaxis, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which are potent inhibitors of phospholipase A₂ and play a role in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs have been shown in prospective studies to decrease the incidence of this complication, but the indication is not generalized in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of rectal administration of indomethacin in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Methods

This was a controlled clinical trial where patients with an elevated risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis were assigned to receive 100 mg of rectal indomethacin or a 2.6 g suppository of glycerin immediately after ERCP, without placement of a pancreatic stent. The patients were determined to be at high risk based on validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as the presence of new upper abdominal pain, hyperamylasemia/hyperlipasemia (at least three times the upper limit) 2 hours after the procedure and hospitalization at least 48 hours because of the complication. Pancreatitis severity was defined according to Cotton’s criteria.

Results

One hundred sixty-six patients were included; 82 in the study group and 84 in the placebo group. Patients had at least one major and/or two minor risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The incidence of the complication was 4.87 % (4/82) in the study group and 20.23 % (17/84) in the placebo group; this difference was significant (P = 0.01). According to Cotton’s criteria, 17 patients (80.9 %) developed mild pancreatitis and 4 (19.1 %) had moderate pancreatitis; 3 of these 4 patients belonged to the placebo group (P = 0.60). Based on these results, an absolute risk reduction of 0.15 (15 %), a relative risk reduction of 0.75 (75 %) and a number needed to treat of 6.5 patients were calculated to prevent an episode of post-ERCP pancreatitis. There was no mortality.

Conclusions

Rectal indomethacin reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients at high risk of developing this complication.

Trial registration

National Clinical Trials NCT02110810. Date April 7, 2014.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement

BACKGROUND

It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

OBJECTIVE

To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.

SETTING

University of Michigan and Indiana University.

PATIENTS

A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS, patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To define the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort.

RESULTS

The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, significantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP.

LIMITATIONS

Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured.

CONCLUSION

FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These findings highlight the importance of adequate training and proficiency before endoscopists attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases.