Oral allopurinol does not prevent the frequency or the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis

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.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) largely remain unknown with changing trends in ERCP use, indication, and techniques. We sought to determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP in consecutive and high-risk patients based on a systemic review and meta-analysis of patients in placebo and no-stent arms of randomized control trials (RCTs).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from the inception of each database to June 2022 to identify full-text RCTs evaluating PEP prophylaxes. The incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from the placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs were recorded for consecutive and high-risk patients. A random-effects meta-analysis for a proportions model was used to calculate PEP incidence, severity, and mortality.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five RCTs were found with 19,038 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. The overall cumulative incidence of PEP was 10.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3-11.3), predominantly among the academic centers conducting such RCTs. The cumulative incidences of severe PEP and mortality were .5% (95% CI, .3-.7) and .2% (95% CI, .08-.3), respectively, across 91 RCTs with 14,441 patients. The cumulative incidences of PEP and severe PEP were 14.1% (95% CI, 11.5-17.2) and .8% (95% CI, .4-1.6), respectively, with a mortality rate of .2% (95% CI, 0-.3) across 35 RCTs with 3733 patients at high risk of PEP. The overall trend for the incidence of PEP among patients randomized to placebo or no-stent arms of RCTs has remained unchanged from 1977 to 2022 (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall incidence of PEP is 10.2% but is 14.1% among high-risk patients based on this systematic review of placebo or no-stent arms of 145 RCTs; this rate has not changed between 1977 and 2022. Severe PEP and mortality from PEP are relatively uncommon.

The "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.

Diclofenac sodium versus ceftazidime for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to compare the efficacy of prophylactic, parenterally administered ceftazidime and rectally applied diclofenac sodium for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent ERCP. In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients received a suppository containing diclofenac sodium rectally (100 mg) and placebo intravenously (group A) or ceftazidime intravenously (1 g) and placebo rectally (group B) immediately before the procedure. The serum and urine amylase levels were recorded and the patients were clinically evaluated after ERCP.

RESULTS

Of the 272 patients enrolled (group A: 129; group B: 143), 32 developed pancreatitis (group A: 11 [8.5 %]; group B: 21 [14.7 %]; P = 0.17; relative risk = 1.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-3.43). The severity of the pancreatitis or complications did not significantly differ between the groups. A serum amylase level of ≥560 U/L and urine amylase level of ≥1150 U/L indicated a positive likelihood ratio for post-ERCP pancreatitis of ≥10. Moreover, the threshold visual analog scale score of ≤5 for abdominal pain after ERCP had excellent diagnostic potential for predicting the presence or absence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEP incidence did not differ between the ceftazidime and diclofenac sodium groups. In patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug contraindications, antibiotics can be considered a safe alternative to diclofenac sodium for PEP prevention. Moreover, the visual analog scale for abdominal pain has excellent diagnostic value for predicting PEP. CLINICAL TRIALS.

GOV NUMBER

NCT 01784445.

Antioxidant therapy in acute, chronic and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and adverse effects of antioxidant therapy in acute pancreatitis (AP), chronic pancreatitis (CP) and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Cochrane library database, and Evidence-based medicine/clinical trials published before August 2014 were searched. Clinical and laboratory outcomes of randomized trials of antioxidant therapy in patients with AP, CP and PEP were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed by the Jadad score based on the description of randomization, blinding, and dropouts (withdrawals). The results of the studies were pooled and meta-analyzed to provide estimates of the efficacy of antioxidant therapy.

RESULTS: Thirty four trials out of 1069 potentially relevant studies with data for 4898 patients were eligible for inclusion. Antioxidant therapy significantly reduced the length of hospital stay in AP patients {mean difference -2.59 d (95%CI: -4.25-(-0.93)], P = 0.002}. Although, antioxidant therapy had no significant effect on serum C reactive protein (CRP) after 5-7 d in AP patients [mean difference -9.57 (95%CI: -40.61-21.48, P = 0.55], it significantly reduced serum CRP after 10 d {mean difference -45.16 [95%CI: -89.99-(-0.33)], P = 0.048}. In addition, antioxidant therapy had no significant effect on CP-induced pain [mean difference -2.13 (95%CI: -5.87-1.6), P = 0.26]. Antioxidant therapy had no significant effects on the incidence of all types of PEP [mean difference 1.05 (95%CI: 0.74-1.5), P = 0.78], severe PEP [mean difference 0.92 (95%CI: 0.43-1.97), P = 0.83], moderate PEP [mean difference 0.82 (95%CI: 0.54-1.23), P = 0.33], and mild PEP [mean difference 1.33 (95%CI: 0.99-1.78), P = 0.06]. Furthermore, while antioxidant therapy had no significant effect on serum amylase after less than 8 h sampling [mean difference -20.61 (95%CI: -143.61-102.39), P = 0.74], it significantly reduced serum amylase close to 24-h sampling {mean difference -16.13 [95%CI: -22.98-(-9.28)], P < 0.0001}.

CONCLUSION: While there is some evidence to support antioxidant therapy in AP, its effect on CP and PEP is still controversial.

Antioxidant drugs to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: What does evidence suggest?

AIM: To determine whether or not the use of antioxidant supplementation aids in the prevention of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was made to evaluate the preventive effect of prophylactic antioxidant supplementation in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). The inclusion criteria included: acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in adults; randomized clinical trials with the use of any antioxidant as an intervention compared with placebo, to reduce PEP. The outcome measure was the incidence and severity of PEP. Twelve RCTs involving 3110 patients since 1999 were included. The antioxidants used were selenite, β-carotene, and pentoxifylline (each one in one trial), N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in three trials, and allopurinol in six trials. The group of patients treated with NAC received different doses; either oral or intravenous, and allopurinol-treated patients received five different oral doses in two different administration periods. The results are expressed with raw numbers, proportions, as well as mean and standard deviations. The incidence of pancreatitis between groups was analyzed with Pearson’s χ² test or Fisher’s exact test (F). The main outcome is expressed as relative risks and 95%CI.

RESULTS: The incidence of pancreatitis in all antioxidant treatment groups was 8.6%, whereas it was 9.7% in the control group. The antioxidants used were selenite, β-carotene, and pentoxifylline (each one in one trial), NAC in three trials, and allopurinol in six trials. In allopurinol trials, three different dosifications were used; two trials reported a low dosage (of less than 400 mg), two trials reported a moderate dose (600 mg) and the remaining two employed higher doses (more than 900 mg). Supplementation was not associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PEP [relative risk (RR) = 0.93; 95%CI: 0.82-1.06; P = 0.28]. In addition, the incidences of PEP in patients treated with allopurinol and those treated with other antioxidants were similar to that observed in patients who received the placebo (RR for trials with allopurinol, 0.92; 95%CI: 0.78-1.08; P = 0.31) and, with the use of other antioxidants, the incidence of PEP was 8.9%, whereas it was 9.7% in the control group (RR = 0.95; 95%CI: 0.77-1.18; P = 0.19).

CONCLUSION: Antioxidant supplementation shows no beneficial effect on the incidence of PEP. There is a lack of robust trials to support the use of antioxidants for prevention.

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP.

SETTING

Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis.

PATIENTS

Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Effect of diclofenac on the levels of lipoxin A4 and Resolvin D1 and E1 in the post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Numerous studies have shown that administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may reduce the incidence of acute pancreatitis after ERCP. Little is known, however, about the mechanism of NSAIDs in preventing pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

In this study, we assigned patients to receive a single dose of intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg immediately after ERCP (diclofenac group) or without (control group). The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of PEP. The serum amylase levels were measured before ERCP and at 3 and 24 h post-procedure in all patients. The Lipoxin A4 (LXA4), Resolvin D1 (Rvd1), and Resolvin E1 (RvE1) levels were measured before ERCP, and 3 and 24 h after the procedure in 30 patients from the diclofenac group and 30 patients from the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were enrolled and completed the follow-up. The overall incidence of PEP was 13.3% (16/120). It occurred in four of 60 patients (6.67%) in the diclofenac group and in 12 of 60 patients (20.00%) in the control group (p = 0.032). The LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1 levels in the diclofenac group at 3 h after ERCP were significantly increased compared with before ERCP (p < 0.05). Compared with the control group, the LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1 levels in the diclofenac group at 3 and 24 h after ERCP were significantly increased (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intramuscular diclofenac after ERCP can reduce the incidence of PEP. This may be related to the fact that diclofenac can increase the levels of LxA4, RvD1, and RvE1.

Prevention effect of allopurinol on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

Background

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) which can be severe and cause death in approximately 10% of cases. Up to now, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been found relevant to the effect of allopurinol on prevention of Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, these results remained controversial.

Objective

To conduct a meta-analysis with RCTs published in full text to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic allopurinol of different dosages and administration time in the incidence and severity of PEP.

Methods

Literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from databases inception to May 2014. RCTs comparing the effect of allopurinol with placebo on prevention of PEP were included. Statistical heterogeneity was quantitatively evaluated byχ² test with the significance set P<0.10 or I²>50%.

Results

Six RCTs consisting of 1974 participants were eventually included. The incidences of PEP in allopurinol group and placebo group were 8.4%(83/986) and 9.9%(98/988) respectively. Meta-analysis showed no evident prevention effect of allopurinol on the incidence of PEP (RR 0.75, 95%CI 0.39–1.42) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 70.4%, P = 0.005). When studies were stratified according to the dosages and administration time of allopurinol they applied, there was still no evident prevention effect of allopurinol on mild, moderate or severe PEP. However, statistically substantial heterogeneity was presented in the subgroup of moderate PEP when the effect of high dose of allopurinol was analyzed (I_moderate² = 82.3%, P_moderate = 0.018). Statistically significant heterogeneity was also observed in subgroup of mild PEP, when the effect of long adminstration time of allopurinol was investigated (I_mild² = 62.8%, P_mild = 0.068).

Conclusion

The prophylactic use of allopurinol in different dosages and administration time had no effect in preventing incidence and severity of PEP.

Free radicals and acute pancreatitis: much ado about … something

There is a convincing body of evidence that oxidative stress is involved in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis. The effects of different radical scavengers suggested that reactive oxygen metabolites are generated at very early stage of disease and contribute to amplify the pancreatic damage. Oxidative stress is also involved in the progression of the disease from a local damage to a systemic organ failure. However, therapeutic use of antioxidants failed to clearly show a clinical benefit in different trials. Therefore, although antioxidants alone seem to be not enough for the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, future combined therapeutic strategies should include antioxidants in its composition.

The results of the Tokyo trial of prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with risperidone (Tokyo P3R): a multicenter, randomized, phase II, non-placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A previous study suggested that ulinastatin effectively prevented post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and hyperenzymemia (PEH) in patients at average risk. In experimental models, risperidone, a selective serotonin 2A antagonist, ameliorated acute pancreatitis. We assessed the effect of risperidone combined with ulinastatin for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, phase II trial, patients undergoing therapeutic ERCP were randomly assigned to receive ulinastatin (150000 U) with or without risperidone (1 mg). A risperidone tablet was taken orally 30-60 min before ERCP and ulinastatin was administered intravenously for 10 min immediately prior to ERCP. The primary end point was the incidence of PEP; secondary end points were PEH severity and enzyme levels (amylase, pancreatic amylase, lipase).

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients (113 per group) were included in the study. Six patients in the risperidone + ulinastatin group and ten patients in the ulinastatin group developed pancreatitis (5.3 vs. 8.8 %, p = 0.438). The incidence of moderate/severe PEP was lower in the risperidone + ulinastatin group (1.8 %) than in the ulinastatin group (4.4 %), but this difference was not significant. Although the incidence of PEH did not differ significantly, post-ERCP levels of all pancreatic enzymes were significantly lower in the risperidone + ulinastatin group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic oral risperidone administration in combination with ulinastatin did not reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in high-risk patients as compared with ulinastatin alone. However, risperidone showed an additive effect with ulinastatin, reducing serum pancreatic enzyme levels.

Antioxidant supplementation for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Acute pancreatitis remains the most common major complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The pathogenesis of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis may be mediated by oxygen-derived free radicals, which could be ameliorated by antioxidants. Antioxidant supplementation may potentially prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of prophylactic antioxidant supplementation compared with control on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Methods

PubMed and Embase databases were searched to identify relevant trials. A standardized Excel file was used to extract data by two independent authors. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis was performed with the fixed-effects model or random-effects model according to heterogeneity.

Results

Eleven studies involving 3,010 patients met our inclusion criteria. Antioxidant supplementation did not significantly decrease the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.65-1.32; P = 0.665). There was also no statistical difference in the severity grades between the antioxidant group and control group.

Conclusions

Based on current evidence, antioxidant supplementation shows no beneficial effect on the incidence and the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis; thus, there is currently a lack of evidence to support using antioxidants for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Impact of introduction of wire-guided cannulation in therapeutic biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Wire-guided cannulation (WGC) might increase the biliary cannulation rate and decrease the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). We assessed the learning curve for WGC in therapeutic biliary ERCP (study 1) and compared WGC and conventional contrast-assisted cannulation (CC) by a matched case-control study (study 2).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 500 therapeutic biliary ERCP cases (250 consecutive cases of WGC and 250 matched controls of CC) were retrospectively studied. Rate and time of biliary cannulation, total procedure time, PEP, and hyperamylasemia were analyzed.

RESULTS

In study 1, biliary cannulation by WGC was successful in 96% of the first 50 cases, with a median time to cannulation of 3 min. Rates of hyperamylasemia were within 10% after 100 WGC. In study 2, there were no significant differences in the overall cannulation rate and PEP between WGC and CC, but the total procedure time was shorter in WGC (30 vs 35 min, P = 0.059). Rates of hyperamylasemia and the change in serum amylase levels was lower (9% vs 14%, P = 0.069, and + 62.8 U/L vs+ 169.5 U/L, P = 0.043) in WGC, which was more prominent in experienced endoscopists (9% vs 17%, P = 0.025, and + 68.9 U/L vs+ 229.3 U/L, P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of WGC was effective in the first 50 cases and did not increase the rate of PEP in biliary therapeutic ERCP.

Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. It can be associated with substantial morbidity. Hence, the minimization of both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis is paramount. Considerable efforts have been made to identify factors that may be associated with an increased risk of this complication. In addition, both procedure- and pharmacological-related interventions have been proposed that may prevent this complication. This paper outlines these interventions and presents the evidence to support their use in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by epinephrine sprayed on the papilla

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla may reduce papillary edema and prevent acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of localized irrigation with epinephrine saline for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 941 patients who were scheduled for ERCP were recruited into this study. We randomized the patients to have 20 mL of either 0.02% epinephrine or saline sprayed on the papilla after diagnostic ERCP to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. We recorded duct visualization, presence of pancreatic acinarization, number of injections into the pancreatic duct, total volume of contrast used, and procedure duration. The serum amylase levels were measured at 6, 24 and 48 h after ERCP. We counted the patients of PEPs and compared whether there was significant difference between the pancreatitis group and the no pancreatitis group.

RESULTS

A univariate analysis of the explanatory variables between the epinephrine and control groups, the pancreatitis and no pancreatitis groups revealed the treatment to be effective, but most of the groups were not statistically significant. PEPs occurred in 40 of the 941 patients (4.25%), the incidence of pancreatitis tended to be higher in the control group (31/480, 6.45%) than in the epinephrine group (9/461, 1.95%) (P = 0.0086).

CONCLUSIONS

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla may be effective to prevent PEP. Female patients (aged ≥ 18 years and < 35 years) (7/40, 17.5%), common bile duct diameter < 10 mm (27/40, 67.5%), previous cholangitis (3/40, 7.5%), body mass index ≥ 24 (22/40, 55%), and/or serum triglycerides ≥ 5.65 mmol/L (6/40, 15%), might be risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, but are not statistically significant in the study.

Intravenous synthetic secretin reduces the incidence of pancreatitis induced by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate whether synthetic secretin is effective in reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

METHODS

This is a single academic medical center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial using secretin (dose of 16 μg) administered intravenously immediately before ERCP. Patients were evaluated for the primary outcome of post-ERCP pancreatitis as diagnosed by a single investigator.

RESULTS

A total of 1100 patients were screened, of whom 869 were randomly assigned to receive secretin (n = 426) or placebo (n = 443) before ERCP and were evaluated after the procedure for efficacy of secretin. The incidence of pancreatitis in the secretin group compared with the placebo group was 36 (8.7%) of 413 patients versus 65 (15.1%) of 431 patients, respectively, P = 0.004. In the subgroup analysis, secretin was highly protective against post-ERCP pancreatitis for patients undergoing biliary sphincterotomy (6/129 vs 32/142, P < 0.001), patients undergoing cannulation of the common bile duct (26/339 vs 56/342, P < 0.001), and patients not undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy (26/388 vs 57/403, P = 0.001). Analysis of the interaction between these groups reveals that the primary effect of secretin prophylaxis was prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients undergoing biliary sphincterotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Synthetic secretin reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis, particularly in patients in undergoing biliary sphincterotomy.

Wire-guided selective cannulation of the bile duct with a sphincterotome: a prospective randomized comparative study with the standard method

OBJECTIVE

Wire-guided cannulation (WGC) is expected to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Our aim was to compare the incidence of PEP and the success rate of deep biliary cannulation using WGC or the standard cannulation method with contrast injection (STD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 172 cases with an intact papilla were randomized into the STD group (n = 86) and the WGC group (n = 86). First a trainee endoscopist attempted the cannulation and if it was not successful, an expert endoscopist tried. When the cannulation was not successful within 10 min, the other method was conducted as a second attempt. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PEP and the secondary endpoint was the success rate of selective cannulation.

RESULTS

In successful cases, PEP occurred in 6.5% in the STD group and 3.0% in the WGC group in the first attempt. Overall rate of PEP was 6.0% (3, mild; 1, moderate and 1, severe) in the STD group and 2.3% (2, mild) in the WGC group, which were not significantly different. Selective cannulation rate in the first attempt was 73.8% in the STD group and 77.9% in the WGC group. After a crossover, the cannulation was successful in the second attempt in 36.4% and 42.1% and finally in 95.2% and 100% by the STD and WGC method, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PEP tended to be lower in the WGC method compared to the STD method. In addition, all cases of pancreatitis in the WGC group were mild. The success rate of cannulation was comparable between two groups.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated pancreatitis: A 15-year review

The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We searched for and evaluated all articles describing the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, morbidity, mortality and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in adult patients using the PubMed database. Search terms included endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, ampulla of vater, endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilatation, cholangiography, adverse events, standards and utilization. We limited our review of articles to those published between January 1, 1994 and August 15, 2009 regarding human adults and written in the English language. Publications from the reference sections were reviewed and included if they were salient and fell into the time period of interest. Between the dates queried, seventeen large (> 500 patients) prospective and four large retrospective trials were conducted. PEP occurred in 1%-15% in the prospective trials and in 1%-4% in the retrospective trials. PEP was also reduced with pancreatic duct stent placement and outcomes were improved with endoscopic sphincterotomy compared to balloon sphincter dilation in the setting of choledocholithiasis. Approximately 34 pharmacologic agents have been evaluated for the prevention of PEP over the last fifteen years in 63 trials. Although 22 of 63 trials published during our period of review suggested a reduction in PEP, no pharmacologic therapy has been widely accepted in clinical use in decreasing the development of PEP. In conclusion, PEP is a well-recognized complication of ERCP. Medical treatment for prevention has been disappointing. Proper patient selection and pancreatic duct stenting have been shown to reduce the complication rate in randomized clinical trials.

Antioxidant therapy in the management of acute, chronic and post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review

We systematically reviewed the clinical trials which recruited antioxidants in the therapy of pancreatitis and evaluated whether antioxidants improve the outcome of patients with pancreatitis. Electronic bibliographic databases were searched for any studies which investigated the use of antioxidants in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP) or chronic pancreatitis (CP) and in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) up to February 2009. Twenty-two randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trials met our criteria and were included in the review. Except for a cocktail of antioxidants which showed improvement in outcomes in three different clinical trials, the results of the administration of other antioxidants in both AP and CP clinical trials were incongruent and heterogeneous. Furthermore, antioxidant therapy including allopurinol and N-acetylcysteine failed to prevent the onset of PEP in almost all trials. In conclusion, the present data do not support a benefit of antioxidant therapy alone or in combination with conventional therapy in the management of AP, CP or PEP. Further double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials with large sample size need to be conducted.

Meta-analysis: octreotide prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis, but only at sufficient doses

BACKGROUND

Effects of octreotide on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis have been studied in many clinical trials. These trials have yielded inconclusive results. Results of more recent studies using larger doses, however, seem to be more optimistic.

AIM

To examine effects of octreotide at different doses on PEP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of relevant databases, including Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index yielded 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Trials were divided into two groups according to the total dosage of octreotide: <0.5 mg (OCT1), > or =0.5 mg (OCT2). The rate of PEP was analysed using a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

At doses of > or =0.5 mg, octreotide reduced the rate of PEP. In the OCT2 group, analysis revealed a statistically significant difference on PEP between the octreotide group and the controls (3.4% vs. 7.5%, pooled OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.28-0.73; P = 0.001, NNT = 25). In the OCT1 group, the rate of PEP was similar between patients receiving octreotide and the controls (7.2% vs. 6.0%, pooled OR = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.80-1.91; P = 0.35).

CONCLUSION

Octreotide is effective in preventing PEP, but only at sufficient doses (> or =0.5 mg).

Oral allopurinol to prevent hyperamylasemia and acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM: To assess the efficacy of allopurinol to prevent hyperamylasemia and pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP).

METHODS: One hundred and seventy patients were enrolled and randomized to two groups: a study group (n = 85) who received 300 mg of oral allopurinol at 15 h and 3 h before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and a control group (n = 85) receiving an oral placebo at the same times. Main Outcome Measurements included serum amylase levels and the number severity of the episodes of pancreatitis. Serum amylase levels were classified as normal (< 150 IU/L) or hyperamylasemia (> 151 IU/L). Episodes of PEP were classified following Ranson’s criteria and CT severity index.

RESULTS: Gender distribution was similar between groups. Mean age was 53.5 ± 18.9 years for study group and 52.8 ± 19.8 years for controls. Also, the distribution of benign pathology was similar between groups. Hyperamylasemia was more common in the control group (P = 0.003). Mild PEP developed in two patients from the study group (2.3%) and eight (9.4%) from control group (P = 0.04), seven episodes were observed in high-risk patients of the control group (25%) and one in the allopurinol group (3.3%, P = 0.02). Risk factors for PEP were precut sphincterotomy (P = 0.02), pancreatic duct manipulation (P = 0.002) and multiple procedures (P = 0.000). There were no deaths or side effects.

CONCLUSION: Oral allopurinol before ERCP decreased the incidences of hyperamylasemia and pancreatitis in patients submitted to high-risk procedures.

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla may reduce papillary edema and thus prevent acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this technique for prevention of post- ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for ERCP were recruited into this study. We randomized the patients to have 10 ml of either 0.02% epinephrine (epinephrine group) or saline (control group) sprayed on the papilla after diagnostic ERCP and prospectively analyzed the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis between the groups. We recorded duct visualization, presence of pancreatic acinarization, number of injections into the pancreatic duct, total volume of contrast used, and procedure duration.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to visualization of the bile duct and/or the main and accessory pancreatic ducts, presence of pancreatic acinarization, number of injections into the pancreatic duct, total volume of contrast used, and procedure duration. Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 4 of the 370 patients (1.1%). The incidence of pancreatitis tended to be higher in the control group (4/185) than in the epinephrine group (0/185) (P = 0.1230).

CONCLUSIONS

Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla tended to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, although it was not statistically significant because of the low incidence of pancreatitis. Further studies on the efficacy of this technique in patients at high risk for pancreatitis, and on other volumes and/or concentrations of epinephrine, are warranted.

Meta-analysis of prophylactic allopurinol use in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and the safety of allopurinol in the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

METHODS

: We used the method recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of allopurinol in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), including 6 RCTs conducted all over the world.

RESULTS

: Six RCTs totaling 1554 patients undergoing ERCP were included. When the RCTs were analyzed, odds ratios of allopurinol were 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.48; P = 0.40) for PEP, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.33-2.28; P = 0.78) for severe PEP, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.37-2.11; P = 0.78) for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.01-3.91; P = 0.28) for case-fatality ratio of PEP, thus indicating no beneficial effects of allopurinol on acute pancreatitis, PEP death rate, and hyperamylasemia. No evidence of publication bias was found.

CONCLUSIONS

: Allopurinol cannot prevent the pancreatic injury after ERCP. Allopurinol is not recommended in the prophylaxis of PEP.

Meta-analysis: allopurinol in the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Several clinical trials evaluating the prophylactic effect of allopurinol on postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis have been published; however, there is no consensus on whether prophylactic allopurinol can reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

AIM

To compare prophylactic allopurinol with placebo on post-ERCP pancreatitis reduction by performing a meta-analysis in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index were searched to find relevant trials. Two reviewers independently identified relevant randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of prophylactic allopurinol on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Outcome measures were the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Four trials involving 1730 patients were included. Analysis suggested that post-ERCP pancreatitis rates were not significantly different (allopurinol 8.9%, placebo 9.7%, P = 0.68), RR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.42, 1.77). Subsequent subgroup analysis confirmed that allopurinol was not statistically superior to placebo in reducing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

Based on current best evidence, prophylactic allopurinol may not be useful for post-ERCP pancreatitis reduction.

Pre-ERCP infusion of semapimod, a mitogen-activated protein kinases inhibitor, lowers post-ERCP hyperamylasemia but not pancreatitis incidence

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia are frequent complications of an ERCP. Semapimod is a synthetic guanylhydrazone that inhibits the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway, macrophage activation, and the production of several inflammatory cytokines.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated whether intravenous (IV) administration of semapimod given before an ERCP reduces the incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and pancreatitis.

DESIGN

A single-center, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTING

An academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Between 2001 and 2005, 242 patients who were undergoing a therapeutic ERCP at our institution were included.

INTERVENTION

Patients received a single IV dose of semapimod or a placebo before an ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as post-ERCP hyperamylasemia.

RESULTS

The incidence of hyperamylasemia was significantly reduced (29.8% vs 18.4%; P = .031). Moreover, semapimod administration significantly lowered the levels of amylase during the first 24 hours after the ERCP. The incidence of clinical pancreatitis was reduced by 40%, without reaching statistical significance (14.9 vs 9.1%; P = .117).

LIMITATIONS

A relatively small single-center study. One dose of semapimod was used.

CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of IV semapimod 1 hour before an ERCP is safe and exerts a biological effect, demonstrated by a statistically significant reduction of the incidence of hyperamylasemia and the levels of post-ERCP amylase. A protective effect for the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis could not be convincingly demonstrated.

Allopurinol to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a risk of pancreatitis (PEP). Animal studies suggest that (single-dose) allopurinol (xanthine oxidase inhibitor with high oral bioavailability and long-lasting active metabolites) may reduce this risk; human study results are conflicting. The aim of this study was to determine if allopurinol decreases the rate of PEP.

METHODS

Patients referred for ERCP to 9 endoscopists at 2 tertiary centers were randomized to receive either allopurinol 300 mg or identical placebo orally 60 minutes before ERCP, stratified according to high-risk ERCP (manometry or pancreatic therapy). The primary outcome (PEP) was adjudicated blindly; pancreatitis was defined according to the Cotton consensus, and evaluated at 48 hours and 30 days. Secondary outcomes included severe PEP, length of stay, and mortality (nil). The trial was terminated after the blinded (midpoint) interim analysis, as recommended by the independent data and safety monitoring committee.

RESULTS

We randomized 586 subjects, 293 to each arm. The crude PEP rates were 5.5% (allopurinol) and 4.1% (placebo), (P = .44; difference = 1.4%; 95% confidence interval, -2.1% to 4.8%). The Mantel-Haenszel combined risk ratio for PEP with allopurinol, considering stratification, was 1.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-2.86). Subgroup analyses suggested nonsignificant trends toward possible benefit in the high-risk group, and possible harm for the remaining subjects. Logistic regression found pancreatic therapy, pancreatic injection, and prior PEP to be the only independent predictors of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Allopurinol does not appear to reduce the overall risk of PEP; however, its potential benefit in the high-risk group (but potential harm for non-high-risk patients) means further study is required.

Review of idiopathic pancreatitis

Recent advances in understanding of pancreatitis and advances in technology have uncovered the veils of idiopathic pancreatitis to a point where a thorough history and judicious use of diagnostic techniques elucidate the cause in over 80% of cases. This review examines the multitude of etiologies of what were once labeled idiopathic pancreatitis and provides the current evidence on each. This review begins with a background review of the current epidemiology of idiopathic pancreatitis prior to discussion of various etiologies. Etiologies of medications, infections, toxins, autoimmune disorders, vascular causes, and anatomic and functional causes are explored in detail. We conclude with management of true idiopathic pancreatitis and a summary of the various etiologic agents. Throughout this review, areas of controversies are highlighted.

Efficacy of diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in predominantly high-risk patients: a randomized double-blind prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is one of the major complications of ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy. It has been shown that nonsteriodal anti-inflammatory drugs are potent inhibitors of phospholipase A(2), activity which is increased in pancreatitis. A previous study showed reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis with administration of rectal diclofenac.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether prophylactic oral diclofenac will reduce the incidence and the severity of ERCP-induced pancreatitis, especially in high-risk patients.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, double-blinded, prospective study.

SETTING

Indiana University Medical Center.

PATIENTS

A total of 207 evaluable patients were randomized to receive either diclofenac 50 mg or placebo by mouth 30 to 90 minutes before and 4 to 6 hours after ERCP.

RESULTS

The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics and to patient and procedure risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. The overall incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 16.4%. It occurred in 17 of 102 patients in the control group (16.7%) and in 17 of 105 patients in diclofenac group (16.2%). The pancreatitis was graded mild in 9.8%, moderate in 5.9%, and severe 1.0% of the control group, and mild in 10.5%, moderate in 4.8%, and severe in 1.0% of the diclofenac group. In high-risk patients, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 17.3%. It occurred in 18.0% (16/89) in the control group and in 17.8% (16/90) in the diclofenac group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency or severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in overall and high-risk patients; however, the power of the study was less than 45%.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic orally administered diclofenac was not observed to affect the frequency or severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Early successes and late failures in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The only way to prevent this complication is to avoid an ERCP all together. Because of the risks involved, a careful consideration should be given to the indication for ERCP and the potential risk/benefit ratio of the test. Once a decision to perform an ERCP is made, the procedure should be carried out with meticulous care by an experienced endoscopist, and with a minimum of pancreatic duct opacification. Several pharmacologic agents have been tested, but to date the most important method of reducing post ERCP pancreatitis is the placement of pancreatic stent. Pancreatic stents should be placed in all patients at high risk of this complication such as those undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct manipulation and intervention, and patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Pancreatic stents should be also considered in patients requiring precut sphincterotomy to gain biliary access.

Somatostatin and gabexate for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prior studies have suggested the efficacy of somatostatin and gabexate in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis prevention. We examined this notion in our study.

METHODS

An extensive literature search led to the inclusion of seven homogeneous high-quality studies (Jadad score >or=4), involving 3,130 patients. The studies were grouped according to the drug's length of administration: given as an infusion for 12 h (groups SOM1 and GAB1 for somatostatin and gabexate, respectively); given as an infusion for less then 12 h (groups SOM2 and GAB2 for somatostatin and gabexate, respectively); and given as a bolus (group SOM3 for somatostatin, none identified for gabexate). Separate meta-analyses investigating post-procedural pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia rates were conducted in a random effects model.

RESULTS

Pancreatitis analyses yielded significant risk differences for the SOM1, SOM3 and GAB1 groups. The resulting values were 7.7% (95% confidence intervals [CI][3.4 to 12.0], P < 0.0001), 8.2% (95% CI [4.4 to 12.0], P < 0.0001) and 5.2% (95% CI [1.1 to 9.4], P = 0.01), respectively. No statistically significant risk differences were observed for the SOM2 and GAB2 groups: -2.3% (95% CI [-5.2 to 0.5], P = 0.11) and -1.1% (95% CI [-3.8 to 1.6], P = 0.41), respectively. Hyperamylasemia analyses yielded significant risk differences for the SOM1 and SOM3 groups (P = 0.017 and 0.001, respectively), although not for the SOM2, GAB1 and GAB2 groups (P = 0.44, 0.49 and 0.47, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Somatostatin administered as a bolus seems to be an efficacious measure of post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention, reducing pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia rates, and being applicable to clinical practice. Further study is required before its introduction into routine care.

Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Because of the potential risks and consequences of post-ERCP pancreatitis, considerable efforts have been made to define patient- and procedure-related factors that may be associated with an increased risk of this complication, along with determining interventions that can be done to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Pancreatits after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography

Pancreatitis is the most common complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); the reported incidence of this complication varies from less than 1% to 40%, but a rate of 4%-8% is reported in most prospective studies involving non-selected patients. Differences in criteria for defining pancreatitis, methods of data collection, and patient populations (i.e. number of high-risk patients included in the published series) are factors that are likely to affect the varying rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can range from a minor inconvenience with one or two days of added hospitalization with full recovery to a devastating illness with pancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, permanent disability, and even death. Although, most episodes of PEP are mild (about 90%), a small percentage of patients (about 10%) develop moderate or severe pancreatitis. In the past, PEP was often viewed as an unpredictable and unavoidable complication, with no realistic strategy for its avoidance. New data have aided in stratification of patients into PEP risk categories and new measures have been introduced to decrease the risk of PEP. As most ERCPs are performed on an outpatient basis, the majority of patients will not develop PEP and can be discharged. Alternatively, early detection of those patients who will go on to develop PEP can guide decisions regarding hospital admission and aggressive management. In the last decade, great efforts have been addressed toward prevention of this complication. Points of emphasis have included technical measures, pharmacological prophylaxis, and patient selection. This review provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of published data on PEP and current suggestions for its avoidance.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis and its prevention

Pancreatitis remains the most common severe complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and typically develops in 5-7% of patients. Although most post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is mild, severe pancreatitis and its complications (including a systemic inflammatory response or the development of pseudocysts or pancreatic necrosis) can occur, and in rare cases death can result. A means of preventing PEP in all patients who undergo the procedure remains elusive. Proper patient selection for ERCP is critical to avoid unnecessary risk. Pharmacologic attempts to prevent PEP have been largely unsuccessful; encouraging results have been difficult to validate. Prophylactic stenting of the pancreatic duct and minimally traumatic cannulation techniques offer the most promise as a means of preventing PEP. This manuscript reviews risk factors for PEP as well as pharmacologic and procedural means that can be used to reduce its incidence.

N/A

N/A

Pharmacological prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis: where are we now?

Acute pancreatitis is a disease of increasing prevalence, unchanged mortality over many decades, and limited treatment strategies. Progress has been made in developing therapies that reduce the rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-associated pancreatitis and in preventing infected pancreatic necrosis with intravenous carbapenems. Attempts at reducing pancreatic enzyme output or inhibiting the activity of digestive enzyme proteases have not yielded encouraging results - nor have anti-inflammatory strategies for the treatment of acute pancreatitis been found to be effective so far. Future therapeutic options that are presently being developed or under investigation attempt to restore pancreatic secretory function, interfere with inflammatory pathways in a more effective manner, or inhibit digestive enzyme proteases more selectively.