Fluid type and volume reduce risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and length of hospital stay in high-risk patients: a secondary analysis of the INDIEH trial

Frequent guidewire passage into the pancreatic duct is an independent risk factor for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among high-risk individuals: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial data

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the patient and procedural risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among patients receiving rectal indomethacin.

METHODS

Data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of high-risk patients undergoing ERCP who received rectal indomethacin with or without topical epinephrine was evaluated. PEP was defined based on the consensus criteria. Pancreatic stenting was excluded to avoid confounding results with the role of epinephrine spray. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient and procedural risk factors for PEP.

RESULTS

Among 960 patients enrolled in the RCT, the PEP incidence was 6.4%. An increased risk of PEP was seen with age <50 years and female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-4.26), malignant biliary stricture(s) (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.52-8.10), >2 guidewire passes into the pancreatic duct (PD) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.43-5.64), and pancreatic brush cytology (OR 6.37, 95% CI 1.10-36.90), whereas a decreased risk of PEP was seen with contrast- over guidewire-assisted cannulation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99) and the use of lactated Ringer's (LR) over other fluid types (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.98). There was a significant trend between the number of guidewire passes into the PD and PEP risk (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

More than two guidewire passes into the PD and pancreatic brush cytology increased while the use of LR decreased the risk of PEP among high-risk patients receiving rectal indomethacin. Pancreatic stent placement and/or LR should be considered in patients with >2 guidewire passes into the PD.

Efficacy of aggressive hydration with normal saline versus lactated Ringer's solution for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a common adverse event in high-risk patients. Current intervention known to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP include pancreatic duct stent placement, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs per rectum, and intravenous (IV) fluids. We compared aggressive normal saline (NS) vs aggressive lactated Ringer's (LR) infusion for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Patients and methods  Patients were randomized to receive either an aggressive infusion of NS or LR. The infusion was started at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr and continued throughout the ERCP procedure. A 20 mL/kg bolus was given at the end of the procedure, then continued at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr. Results  A total of 136 patients were included in our analysis. The incidence of PEP was 4 % (3/72 patients) in the LR group versus 11 % (7/64 patients) in the NS group resulting in a relative risk (RR) of 0.38 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 1.42; P  = 0.19). The relative risk reduction (RRR) was 0.62 (95 % CI -0.41 to 0.90) along with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.07 (95 % CI -0.025 to 0.17) and an number needed to treat of 15 (95 % CI -41 to 6). Conclusions  To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing aggressive IV NS to aggressive IV LR in high-risk patients. The incidence of PEP was lower in the group receiving an aggressive LR infusion (4 %) compared to NS infusion (11 %). However, the difference was not statistically significant likely due to poor accrual thereby impacting the power of the study.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

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.