Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

Update in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Of all the possible complications associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), acute pancreatitis undoubtedly represents the heaviest burden for patients and healthcare professionals. The overall incidence, ranging from 3.5% to around 10%, and annual estimated costs exceeding $150 million in the USA should signal caution for everyone carrying out ERCP. In-depth knowledge of the risk factors and the pharmacological and endoscopic treatment options is required to avoid this adverse event. In this review, we evaluate the relevant data published in the literature since the appearance of the latest recommendations of the leading gastroenterological societies. Thus, we intend to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the factors to consider and possible interventions applicable before and after the intervention to prevent the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP.

Results

We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score.

Conclusions

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

Pharmacological and Endoscopic Interventions for Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Background

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) represents the most common serious complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are the prophylactic interventions with more evidence and efficacy; however, PEP still represents a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Chronic statin use has been proposed as a prophylactic method that could be cheap and relatively safe. However, the evidence is conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the impact of endoscopic and pharmacological interventions including chronic statin and aspirin use, on the development of PEP.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago from January 2015 to March 2018. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression.

Results

A total of 681 ERCPs were included in the study. Twelve (1.76%) developed PEP. Univariate, multivariate, and subgroup analyses did not show any association between chronic statin or aspirin use and PEP. PDS and rectal indomethacin were protective in patients undergoing pancreatic duct injection. Pancreatic duct injection, female sex, and younger age were associated with a higher risk. History of papillotomy was associated with lower risk only in the univariate analysis (all P values < 0.05).

Conclusion

Chronic use of statins and aspirin appears to add no additional benefit to prevent ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs, and PDS after appropriate patient selection continue to be the main prophylactic measures. The lower incidence at our center compared with the reported data can be explained by the high rates of rectal indomethacin and PDS, the use of noninvasive diagnostic modalities for patient selection, and the expertise of the endoscopists.

Acute Pancreatitis: Diagnosis and Treatment

Acute pancreatitis is a common indication for hospital admission, increasing in incidence, including in children, pregnancy and the elderly. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis with fluid and/or necrotic collections causes substantial morbidity, and severe disease with persistent organ failure causes significant mortality. The diagnosis requires two of upper abdominal pain, amylase/lipase ≥ 3 ×upper limit of normal, and/or cross-sectional imaging findings. Gallstones and ethanol predominate while hypertriglyceridaemia and drugs are notable among many causes. Serum triglycerides, full blood count, renal and liver function tests, glucose, calcium, transabdominal ultrasound, and chest imaging are indicated, with abdominal cross-sectional imaging if there is diagnostic uncertainty. Subsequent imaging is undertaken to detect complications, for example, if C-reactive protein exceeds 150 mg/L, or rarer aetiologies. Pancreatic intracellular calcium overload, mitochondrial impairment, and inflammatory responses are critical in pathogenesis, targeted in current treatment trials, which are crucially important as there is no internationally licenced drug to treat acute pancreatitis and prevent complications. Initial priorities are intravenous fluid resuscitation, analgesia, and enteral nutrition, and when necessary, critical care and organ support, parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, pancreatic exocrine and endocrine replacement therapy; all may have adverse effects. Patients with local complications should be referred to specialist tertiary centres to guide further management, which may include drainage and/or necrosectomy. The impact of acute pancreatitis can be devastating, so prevention or reduction of the risk of recurrence and progression to chronic pancreatitis with an increased risk of pancreas cancer requires proactive management that should be long term for some patients.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.

Efficacy of Combining Aggressive Hydration With Rectal Indomethacin in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP). No randomized controlled trial (RCT) has compared the efficacy of the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommended interventions for PEP prevention. We assessed the effectiveness of these interventions using network meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs investigating guideline-recommended interventions and their combinations [rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs): indomethacin or diclofenac, pancreatic stent (PS), aggressive hydration (AH), sublingual nitrate) for PEP prevention. We performed direct and Bayesian network meta-analysis, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve to rank interventions. Subgroup network meta-analysis for high-risk populations was also performed. We identified a total of 38 RCTs with 10 different interventions. Each intervention was protective against PEP on direct and network meta-analysis compared with controls. Except AH+diclofenac and NSAIDs+ sublingual nitrate, AH+indomethacin was associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP compared with PS [odds ratio (OR), 0.09; credible interval (CrI), 0.003-0.71], indomethcin+PS (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.85), diclofenac (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), AH (OR, 0.09; CrI, 0.003-0.65), sublingual nitrate (OR, 0.07; CrI, 0.002-0.63), and indomethacin (OR, 0.06; CrI, 0.002-0.43). AH with either rectal NSAIDs or sublingual nitrate had similar efficacy. AH+indomethacin was the best intervention for preventing PEP with 95.3% probability of being ranked first. For high-risk patients, although the efficacy of PS and indomethacin were comparable, PS had an 80.8% probability of being ranked first. AH+indomethacin seems the best intervention for preventing PEP. For high-risk patients, PS seems the most effective strategy. The potential of combination of interventions need to be explored further.

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

BACKGROUND/AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prevention of pancreatitis after stent implantation for distal malignant biliary strictures: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biliary stent placement remains a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary strictures (DMBS). The incidence of post-ERCP-pancreatitis (PEP) significantly increases in patients receiving fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) who undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of prevention of PEP after stent implantation for DMBSs. The following operational variables were evaluated: (1) stent type (plastic or metal stent); (2) stent location (above or across the sphincter of Oddi); (3) prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement; (4) endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched to identify eligible studies up to October 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using fixed- or random- effects models.

EXPERT OPINION

1. PEP occurs more frequently in DMBS patients with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to that plastic stent (PS). 2. The PEP incidence is higher in covered stents than that in uncovered self-expandable metal stents (USEMS), but not significantly. 3. PEP incidence increases in patients receiving transpapillary FCSEMS placement, particularly when there is an absence of pancreatic duct dilation, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting is recommended for these patients. 4. Limited studies with small sample indicate that there is no significant difference in PEP incidence between transpapillary and suprapapillary stents placement for DMBS. 5. Limited studies indicate that EST does not significantly affect the incidence of pancreatitis in DMBS patients.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Prophylaxis in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and is responsible for substantial morbidity and health care expenditures of at least $200 million. Therapies for PEP prevention include pancreatic stent placement (PSP), rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, and aggressive lactated Ringer's hydration. Our objective was to determine which PEP prophylactic strategies are cost effective.

METHODS

We developed 2 separate decision trees to evaluate PEP prophylactic strategies. The first, in high-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, PSP, PSP with indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's, and no prophylaxis. The second, in average-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration, and no prophylaxis. We used incidence rates, transition probabilities, and costs from publications and public data sources. Outcome measures were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Compared with no prophylaxis, all strategies were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000 in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy in high-risk patients ($31,589/QALYs). In average-risk patients, indomethacin and sublingual nitrates were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000/QALYs compared with no prophylaxis. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy ($53,016/QALYs).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy for preventing PEP in both average-risk and high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. All strategies were cost effective when compared with no prophylaxis in high-risk patients, whereas all strategies except for aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's were cost effective in average-risk patients. Further studies are needed to improve the utilization of PEP prevention strategies.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The feasibility of pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent with a 0.025-in. guidewire

Pancreatic duct stenting is a well-established method for reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is no consensus on the optimal type of plastic stent. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new 4-Fr plastic stent for pancreatic duct stenting. Forty-nine consecutive patients who placed the 4-Fr stent into the pancreatic duct (4Fr group) were compared with 187 consecutive patients who placed a conventional 5-Fr stent (control group). The primary outcome was technical success. Complications rate, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce selection bias. The technical success rate was 100% in the 4Fr group and 97.9% in the control group (p = 0.315). Post-ERCP amylase level was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group than the control group before propensity score matching (p = 0.006), though without statistical significance after propensity score matching (p = 0.298). The rate of PEP in the 4Fr group (6.1%) was lower than the control group (15.5%), though without statistical significance before (p = 0.088) and after (p = 1.00) propensity score matching. Pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent would be at least similar or more feasible and safe compared to the conventional plastic stent.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, but the comparative efficacy of these treatments remains unclear. Our aim was to do an exploratory network meta-analysis of previous RCTs to systematically compare the direct and indirect evidence and rank NSAIDs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these to determine the most efficacious method of prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from inception to Nov 15, 2020, for full-text RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention in adult (aged ≥18 years) patients undergoing ERCP. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from published reports. We analysed incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis across studies using network meta-analysis under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the confidence rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020172606.

FINDINGS

We identified 1503 studies, of which 55 RCTs evaluating 20 interventions in 17 062 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The mean incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the placebo or active control group was 12·2% (95% CI 11·4-13·0). Normal saline plus rectal indometacin (OR 0·02, 95% CI 0·00-0·40), intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg (0·24, 0·09-0·69), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·30, 0·16-0·55), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate (0·31, 0·12-0·78), 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·35, 0·26-0·48), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·36, 0·25-0·52), 3 Fr pancreatic stents (0·47, 0·26-0·87), and rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·60, 0·50-0·73) were all more efficacious than placebo for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in pairwise comparisons. 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·59, 0·41-0·84), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·49, 0·26-0·94), intravenous standard-volume normal saline plus rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·04, 0·00-0·66), and rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·59, 0·40-0·89) were more efficacious than rectal indometacin 100 mg. The GRADE confidence rating was low to moderate for 98·3% of the pairwise comparisons.

INTERPRETATION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarises the available literature on NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal diclofenac 100 mg is the best performing rectal NSAID in this network meta-analysis. Combinations of prophylaxis might be more effective, but there is little evidence. These findings help to establish prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis for future research and practice, and could reduce costs and increase adoption of prophylaxis.

FUNDING

None.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis with a combination of pharmacological agents based on rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Rectally administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are effective but suboptimal in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or PEP. New trials with the combination of rectal NSAIDs and other pharmacological agents have been conducted. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the relative efficacy of combination regimens and identify an optimal regimen for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all the randomized controlled studies published until October 15, 2019, examining rectal NSAIDs and their combination with other pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. We conducted an NMA to combine the direct and indirect comparisons of rectal NSAIDs and their combination with other pharmacological agents.

RESULTS

The NMA included 24 studies evaluating 14 regimens in 11 321 patients. According to predictive interval plot and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, indomethacin + lactated Ringer's solution, followed by diclofenac + nitrate and indomethacin + normal saline, is the most efficacious combination of pharmacological agents for the overall prevention of PEP. Rectal indomethacin alone is the most efficacious agent for prevention of moderate to severe PEP, and rectal diclofenac is the most useful agent for prevention of PEP among the high-risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin with intravenous hydration and rectal diclofenac with sublingual nitrate are the most efficacious combination regimens for the overall prevention of PEP.

Increased Use of Prophylactic Measures in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic duct stenting, and intensive intravenous hydration have been proven to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Trial participation and guideline changes demanded an assessment of the clinical practice of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis.

AIMS

The surveys aim to identify points of improvement to inform and educate ERCPists about current evidence-based practice.

METHODS

Two anonymous surveys were conducted among Dutch gastroenterologists in 2013 (n = 408) and 2020 (n = 575) for longitudinal views and attitudes pertaining to post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and recognition of post-ERCP pancreatitis risk factors.

RESULTS

In 2013 and 2020, respectively, 121 and 109 ERCPists responded. In the 2013 survey, 98% of them utilized NSAID prophylaxis and 62% pancreatic duct stent prophylaxis in specific cases. In the 2020 survey, the use of NSAIDs (100%), pancreatic duct stents (78%), and intensive intravenous hydration (33%) increased among ERCPists. NSAID prophylaxis was the preferred prophylactic measure for all risk factors in the 2020 survey, except for ampullectomy, pancreatic duct contrast injection, and pancreatic duct cannulation, for which NSAID prophylaxis and pancreatic duct stent combined was equally favored or preferred.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs are the most applied post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis in the Netherlands, followed by pancreatic duct stents and intensive intravenous hydration. Additionally, there is reason to believe that recent guideline updates and active research participation have led to increased prophylaxis implementation.