Effect of rectal indomethacin for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis depends on difficulties of cannulation: results from a randomized study with sequential biliary intubation

Intravenous Hemin, a potential heme oxygenase-1 activator, does not protect from post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in humans: Results of a randomized multicentric multinational placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Hemin, a heme oxygenase 1 activator has shown efficacy in the prevention and treatment of acute pancreatitis in mouse models. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess the protective effect of Hemin administration to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in patients at risk.

METHODS

In this multicenter, multinational, placebo-controlled, double-blind RCT, we assigned patients at risk for PEP to receive a single intravenous dose of Hemin (4 mg/kg) or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were considered to be at risk on the basis of validated patient- and/or procedure-related risk factors. Neither rectal NSAIDs nor pancreatic stent insertion were allowed in randomized patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. Secondary outcomes included lipase elevation, mortality, safety, and length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 282 of the 294 randomized patients had complete follow-up. Groups were similar in terms of clinical, laboratory, and technical risk factors for PEP. PEP occurred in 16 of 142 patients (11.3%) in the Hemin group and in 20 of 140 patients (14.3%) in the placebo group (p = 0.48). Incidence of severe PEP reached 0.7% and 4.3% in the Hemin and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.07). Significant lipase elevation after ERCP did not differ between groups. Length of hospital stay, mortality and severe adverse events rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We failed to detect large improvements in PEP rate among participants at risk for PEP who received IV hemin immediately after the procedure compared to placebo.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01855841).

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.

NSAIDs do not reduce severity among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients

OBJECTIVE

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.

DESIGN

A systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.

RESULTS

7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.

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.

Universal prophylactic rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with a policy of selective pancreatic duct stenting significantly reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective for the prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, the benefit in average-risk patients is unclear. We aimed at assessing the benefit of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs in unselected consecutive patients to prevent PEP.

METHODS

All patients undergoing index ERCP procedures from January 2018 until March 2020 were included. All patients received prophylactic rectal diclofenac. A prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent was placed if there was repeated PD cannulation, at the discretion of the endoscopist. The frequency of PEP was compared with historical controls.

RESULTS

Of 769 patients who underwent ERCP, 34 (4.4%) developed PEP (mild in 29 [85.3%], moderate in four [11.8%] and severe in one [2.9%]). Female gender, precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent PD cannulation and procedural time of > 30 minutes predicted PEP in univariate analysis. Inadvertent PD cannulation (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8-11.7; p < 0.001) and procedural time of > 30 minutes (OR 8.5, 95% CI: 3.7-10.1; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. When compared with historical controls, the odds of PEP with prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs and selective PD stenting was 0.54 (CI: 0.31-0.93, p = 0.027). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 22 to prevent one PEP with prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs effectively prevents the occurrence of PEP in unselected consecutive patients in a real-world scenario.

Efficacy of Combined Management with Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography: a Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) alone or in combination with other agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopanography.

METHODS

We carried out a literature search of random controlled trials (RCTs) on preventing post-operative pancreatitis by administration of the anti-inflammatory drugs, indomethacin and diclofenac, following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The databases searched for relevant publications up to July 7, 2021, included PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. We screened the literature according to inclusion criteria and analyzed the extracted data. The overall population and high-risk patient groups were analyzed, with the main outcome being the incidence of PEP.

RESULTS

The search identified 32 RCTs that included 15019 patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis and 9 different interventions. The results of the overall population network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. However, compared with placebo, there was no statistically significant difference between the two interventions (NSAIDs + standard hydration and high-dose NSAIDs). In addition, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates were associated with a lower incidence of PEP compared to that observed with NSAIDs alone. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + sublingual nitrate had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + standard hydration, NSAIDs + melatonin, NSAIDs + aggressive hydration, NSAIDs + somatostatin, NSAIDs alone, NSAIDs + epinephrine, high-dose NSAIDs, and placebo. In the high-risk subgroup, the results of the network meta-analysis showed that NSAIDs alone, high-dose NSAIDs, and a combination of NSAIDs showed no statistically significant difference in their ability to reduce the incidence of PEP compared with placebo. Probability ranking results showed that NSAIDs + hydration had the best effect, followed by NSAIDs + sublingual nitroglycerin and NSAIDs + aggressive hydration.

CONCLUSION

Of the nine interventions, NSAIDs + sublingual nitrates had considerably better efficacy than the other drugs for reducing the incidence of PEP in the overall population. In high-risk patients, NSAIDs + standard hydration may be the best preventive treatment; however, more randomized, controlled trials are needed to validate our results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: PROSPERO-International prospective register of systematic reviews. Unique identifying number or registration ID: CRD42021282205.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

JPN clinical practice guidelines 2021 with easy-to-understand explanations for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

In preparing the Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis 2021, the committee focused the issues raised by the results of nationwide epidemiological survey in 2016 in Japan METHOD: In addition to a systematic search using the previous JPN guidelines, papers published from January 2014 to September 2019 were searched for the contents to be covered by the guidelines based on the concept of GRADE system.

RESULTS

Thirty-six clinical questions (CQ) were prepared in 15 subject areas. Base on the facts that patients diagnosed with severe disease by both Japanese prognostic factor score and contrast-enhanced CT grade had a high fatality rate and that little prognosis improvement after 2 weeks of disease onset was not obtained, we emphasized the importance of Pancreatitis Bundles, which was shown to be effective in improving prognosis, and the CQ sections for local pancreatic complications had been expanded to ensure adoption of a step-up approach. Furthermore, on the facts that enteral nutrition for severe acute pancreatitis was not started early within 48 hours of admission and that unnecessary prophylactic antibiotics was used in almost all cases, we emphasized early enteral nutrition in small amounts even if gastric feeding is used and no prophylactic antibiotics in mild pancreatitis.

CONCLUSION

All the members of the committee have put a lot of effort into preparing the extensively revised guidelines in the hope that more people will have a common understanding and that better medical care will be spread.

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.

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.

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are equally efficient in preventing pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in average-risk patients

Rectal indomethacin and diclofenac are promising drugs for prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, their prophylactic effect on PEP in average‐risk patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of rectal indomethacin and diclofenac in average‐risk patients, and to indirectly compare the prophylactic effect of the two drugs. A comprehensive search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on rectal indomethacin or diclofenac for prophylaxis against PEP. Fixed‐ and random‐effects models weighted by the Mantel–Haenszel method were used for direct comparisons. The adjusted indirect treatment comparison method was used to indirectly compare the efficacy of indomethacin and diclofenac. A total of 10 RCTs, including 2928 patients, met our inclusion criteria. No significant publication bias was identified. Pooled estimates showed that rectal indomethacin and diclofenac were associated with a significant reduction in the overall risk of PEP compared with control intervention [relative risk (RR) = 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.46–0.83] in average‐risk patients. Subgroup analyses showed that both rectal indomethacin (RR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49–0.94) and diclofenac (RR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.23–0.75) were effective in the prevention of PEP. Indirect comparison showed no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two drugs in the prevention of PEP (RR = 1.607; 95% CI: 0.824–3.136). The updated meta‐analysis suggests that both drugs provide equivalent protection against PEP in average‐risk patients.

Rectally Administered Low-Dose Diclofenac Has No Effect on Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Propensity Score Analysis

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the preventive effect of low-dose diclofenac (25-50 mg) on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) by propensity score matching analysis.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 515 patients who underwent ERCP for the first time with or without the rectal administration of low-dose diclofenac before the procedure. For the purpose of minimization of the intrinsic selection bias, we compared the incidence rate of PEP between the diclofenac and control group after propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 15 patients (2.9%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between the diclofenac (2.4%) and control group (3.3%) (P = 0.608). One hundred ninety matched pairs were generated by propensity score matching and analyzed; however, the incidence rate of PEP was the same in both groups (2.1%, P = 1.000). In the subgroup analysis using data of patients with high-risk factors for developing PEP, the incidence rate of PEP was comparable between the diclofenac (3.8%) and control groups (4.0%) (P = 0.917).

CONCLUSIONS

In our propensity score analysis, rectal administration of low-dose diclofenac was not shown to be useful in preventing PEP.

Combination prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients undergoing double-guidewire assisted biliary cannulation: A case-control study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are recommended for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). However, the effects of the combination of the two methods on preventing PEP are controversial. We hypothesized that some group of difficult patients might benefit from the combination of indomethacin plus PDS (IP) compared with indomethacin alone (IN).

METHODS

Patients with native papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in eight tertiary hospitals were screened. They were enrolled if the cannulation proved difficult and post-procedure indomethacin was administered. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between IP and IN groups. The primary outcome was PEP.

RESULTS

Among 4456 patients with available cannulation-related data, 1889 (42.4%) patients had difficult cannulation and received indomethacin. After PSM, both IP and IN groups included 332 patients. PEP was comparable between the two groups (12.7% vs 10.2%, P = 0.329). By subgroup analysis, the PEP rate was found to be lower in the IP group than in the IN group (7.3% vs 18.2%, P = 0.026) in patients undergoing double-guidewire technique (DGT). The results of an additional analysis using PSM in DGT patients were consistent with the subgroup analysis results (7.8% vs 19.4%, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study indicated that the combined prevention of PEP with indomethacin plus PDS was useful in PEP prevention in patients undergoing DGT. Other groups of patients with difficult cannulation may not benefit from the combination strategy.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

Seven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002-0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051-0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22-1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18-2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug effectivity in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary therapeutic procedure for the treatment of diseases affecting the biliary tree and pancreatic duct. Although the therapeutic success rate of ERCP is high, the procedure can cause complications, such as acute pancreatitis [post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP)], bleeding and perforation.

AIM

To assess the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in preventing PEP during follow-up.

METHODS

Databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Library were searched. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of NSAIDs and placebo for the prevention of PEP were included. Outcomes evaluated included the incidence of PEP, severity of pancreatitis, route of administration, types, dose, and timing of administration of NSAIDs.

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs were considered eligible with a total of 8143 patients analyzed. Overall, 4020 patients used NSAIDs before ERCP and 4123 did not use NSAIDs (control group). Ultimately, 298 cases of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis were diagnosed in the NSAID group and 484 cases in the placebo group. The risk of PEP was lower in the NSAID group risk difference (RD): -0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.07 to - 0.03; number needed to treat (NNT), 25; P < 0.05. NSAID use effectively prevented mild pancreatitis compared to placebo use (2.5% vs 4.1%; 95%CI: -0.05 to -0.01; NNT, 33; P < 0.05), but information on moderate PEP and severe PEP could not be fully elucidated. Only rectal administration reduced the incidence of PEP with RD: -0.06; 95%CI: -0.08 to -0.04; NNT, 17; P < 0.05). Furthermore, only the use of diclofenac or indomethacin was effective in preventing PEP, at a dose of 100 mg, which must be administered before performing ERCP.

CONCLUSION

Rectal administration of diclofenac and indomethacin significantly reduced the risk of developing mild PEP. Additional RCTs are needed to compare the efficacy between NSAID routes of administration in preventing PEP.

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

100 mg rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic stents both significantly reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparison of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between them in high-risk patients is absent. We conducted this network meta-analysis to indirectly compare the efficacies of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic stents in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients and help us decide which is preferred in clinical practice.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was done to identify RCTs published in English full-text. Interventions included 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) and pancreatic stents. Only studies with high-risk patients of PEP were included. Meta-analyses of NSAIDs and pancreatic stents were conducted respectively. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian method was performed.

RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs, 8 on pancreatic stents and 6 on 100 mg rectal NSAIDs in high-risk patients. There was no direct comparison between them. After excluding an outlier study on NSAIDs (n = 144), meta-analyses showed they both significantly and statistically reduced the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients (pancreatic stents: n = 8 studies, random-effects risk ratio (RR)0.41, 95%CI 0.30-0.56, I = 0%; NSAIDs: n = 5 studies, random-effects RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.25-0.54, I = 0%). And network meta-analysis showed efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs was equal to pancreatic stents (random-effects RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.50-1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of 100 mg rectal NSAIDs (diclofenac or indomethacin) seems equally significant to pancreatic stents in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. Considering the cost-effectiveness and safety, 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin may be preferred.

Real-World Practice Patterns in the Era of Rectal Indomethacin for Prophylaxis Against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a High-Risk Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The benefit of indomethacin suppositories for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients was established in a landmark trial published in 2012. The aims of this study were to measure the adoption of indomethacin prophylaxis in widespread clinical practice, evaluate concurrent trends in pancreatic duct (PD) stent utilization, and estimate the impact of these changes on PEP in a high-risk population.

METHODS

Data were extracted from a commercial database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health, Somers, NY) that aggregates electronic health records from 26 US healthcare systems from 2009 to 2018. Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, we identified a cohort of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and were at high risk for PEP based on narrow criteria. PEP was defined as an emergency department or hospital admission 1-5 days after ERCP with an associated diagnosis of pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Twenty six thousand eight hundred twenty ERCPs were performed on this high-risk cohort from 2009 to 2018. The overall PEP rate during the study period was 8.6%. There was no decrease in PEP rates from 2012 to 2018. Beginning in 2012, indomethacin usage increased linearly (P < 0.001), but remained below 50% in 2018. As indomethacin increased, utilization of PD stents declined abruptly from 2013 to 2014 (40.7%-8.5%) and trended to a nadir of 3.0%.

DISCUSSION

Despite its low cost, widespread availability, and level I evidence of benefit in reducing the risk of PEP in high-risk patients, the adoption of rectal indomethacin during ERCP has been slow and the medication continues to be under-utilized. In parallel, the PD stent usage has declined dramatically. The lack of change in PEP rates during the study period could be attributable to the persistent low usage of rectal indomethacin or the decline in PD stent use. Further educational efforts and quality assurance measures are warranted to ensure that rectal indomethacin and PD stent placement are more appropriately used in clinical practice.

Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: A Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP procedure. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are reported to be one protective pharmacological agent with great efficacy regarding this complication. Recently, more trails have addressed this issue and some inconsistent results appeared. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different rectal NSAIDs schemes to prevent PEP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible studies published on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science before November 2018 were reviewed, and those which met the inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. The preventions were divided as placebo/no treatment, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, post-ERCP rectal indomethacin, pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin, indomethacin using during ERCP, and pre-ERCP rectal naproxen. The main outcomes included the incidence of PEP and its severity. Other complications were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 23 randomized controlled trials were included. The results of network meta-analysis illustrated that compared with the control, post-ERCP rectal diclofenac, pre-ERCP rectal diclofenac, and indomethacin were significantly associated with lower incidences of PEP. Moreover, it is notable that pre-ERCP rectal NSAIDs might reduce the severity of pancreatitis. Also, rectal NSAIDs may lead to less occurrence of asymptomatic hyperamylasemia. On the basis of the clustered ranking, pre-ERCP diclofenac appeared to be the superior intervention for PEP with satisfying efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that pre-ERCP diclofenac is the optimal prevention method for PEP. However, more high quality head-to-head randomized controlled trials and observational studies are expected in the future.

Should we administer rectal anti-inflammatory drugs in all ERCPs in order to prevent pancreatitis? At least, it does not harm!

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). The sensitivity of the pancreas, which may respond with such violence to the slightest pressure exerted at the entrance to its main duct in the papilla of Vater, is even philosophically surprising. In fact, each touch on the papilla increases the potential for pancreatitis development. The initial stimulus resulting in obstruction of pancreatic secretion may be the edema caused by the catheter's physical contact, the thermal effect of sphincterotomy, or the overdistension induced by the injected contrast. The triggering fact is followed by a release of inflammatory cytokines, which induce changes in pancreatic microcirculation.

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

Background and study aims  While several interventions may decrease risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it remains unclear whether one strategy is superior to others. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis among high-risk patients. Methods  A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database through May 2017. Interventions included: rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aggressive hydration with lactated ringer's (LR) solution, and pancreatic stent placement compared to placebo. Only studies with patients at high-risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of treatments was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Results  We identified 29 trials, comprising 7,862 participants comparing four preventive strategies. On network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, rectal NSAIDs (B = - 0.69, 95 % CI [-1.18; - 0.21]), pancreatic stent (B = - 1.25, 95 % CI [-1.81 to -0.69]), LR (B = - 0.67, 95 % CI [-1.20 to -0.13]), and combination of LR plus rectal NSAIDs (B = - 1.58; 95 % CI [-3.0 to -0.17]), were all associated with a reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreatic stent placement had the highest SUCRA probability (0.81, 95 % CI [0.83 to 0.80]) of being ranked the best prophylactic treatment. Conclusions  Based on this network meta-analysis, pancreatic stent placement appears to be the most effective preventive strategy for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Postoperative Pancreatitis Prevention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

There is controversy regarding the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for prophylaxis against endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) postoperative pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Selected RCTs were pooled under a fixed effects model to generate the relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs involving a total of 5031 patients (2555 in the intervention group and 2476 in the control group) were selected. Overall, NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP (RR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.64, I² = 40.4%) and moderate to severe PEP (RR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.67, I² = 0%) compared with the control group. Subgroup analyses were performed according to route of administration (rectal or other), type of NSAIDs (diclofenac, indomethacin, or other), timing of administration (pre-ERCP, post-ERCP, or other), and patient population (high risk or general). Subgroup analyses showed difference in clinical efficacy of NSAID prophylaxis regardless of route, timing, or specific type of NSAID.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs were associated with a significant reduction in risk of PEP and moderate to severe PEP compared to the control group.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment

BACKGROUND

Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is comparatively complex application. Researchers has been investigated prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), since it has been considered to be the most common complication of ERCP. Although ERCP can lead various complications, it can also be avoided.

AIM

To study the published evidence and systematically review the literature on the prevention and treatment for PEP.

METHODS

A systematic literature review on the prevention of PEP was conducted using the electronic databases of ISI Web of Science, PubMed and Cochrane Library for relevant articles. The electronic search for the review was performed by using the search terms “Post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis” AND “prevention” through different criteria. The search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed between January 2009 and February 2019. Duplicate studies were detected by using EndNote and deleted by the author. PRISMA checklist and flow diagram were adopted for evaluation and reporting. The reference lists of the selected papers were also scanned to find other relevant studies.

RESULTS

726 studies meeting the search criteria and 4 relevant articles found in the edited books about ERCP were identified. Duplicates and irrelevant studies were excluded by screening titles and abstracts and assessing full texts. 54 studies were evaluated for full text review. Prevention methods were categorized into three groups as (1) assessment of patient related factors; (2) pharmacoprevention; and (3) procedural techniques for prevention. Most of studies in the literature showed that young age, female gender, absence of chronic pancreatitis, suspected Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, recurrent pancreatitis and history of previous PEP played a crucial role in posing high risks for PEP. 37 studies designed to assess the impact of 24 different pharmacologic agents to reduce the development of PEP delivered through various administration methods were reviewed. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are widely used to reduce risks for PEP. Rectal administration of indomethacin immediately prior to or after ERCP in all patients is recommended by European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to prevent the development of PEP. The majority of the studies reviewed revealed that rectally administered indomethacin had efficacy to prevent PEP. Results of the other studies on the other pharmacological interventions had both controversial and promising results. Thirteen studies conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 4 distinct procedural techniques to prevent the development of PEP were reviewed. Pancreatic Stent Placement has been frequently used in this sense and has potent and promising benefits in the prevention of PEP. Studies on the other procedural techniques have had inconsistent results.

CONCLUSION

Prevention of PEP involves multifactorial aspects, including assessment of patients with high risk factors for alternative therapeutic and diagnostic techniques, administration of pharmacological agents and procedural techniques with highly precise results in the literature.

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

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

Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Post-procedure Rectal Indomethacin

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP. Rectal indomethacin has been widely administered to decrease the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients. However, it cannot completely prevent the occurrence of PEP. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the risk factors for PEP in high-risk patients receiving post-ERCP indomethacin.

METHODS

From June 2012 to July 2015, patients undergoing ERCP and at high risk for PEP in three tertiary hospitals in China were enrolled. All patients received indomethacin after the procedure. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the risk factors.

RESULTS

Seven hundred ninety patients at high risk for PEP received post-ERCP indomethacin. The incidence of overall PEP and moderate-to-severe PEP was 8.0 and 1.5%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (OR 2.73; 95%CI 1.38-5.43; p = 0.004), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 4.53; 95%CI 1.60-12.81; p = 0.004), number of cannulation attempts ≥ 13 (OR 2.00; 95%CI 1.07-3.77; p = 0.030), inadvertent pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation ≥ 1 (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.04-4.90; p = 0.040), and pancreatic contrast injections ≥ 1 (OR 2.30; 95%CI 1.02-5.23; p = 0.046) were high risk factors for overall PEP. For moderate-to-severe PEP, suspected SOD (OR 4.67; 1.19-18.35; p = 0.027), the presence of hilar obstruction (OR 7.95; 1.39-44.97; p = 0.010), and more cannulation attempts (OR 3.71; 1.09-12.65; p = 0.036) were three independent risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of high-risk patients had PEP even receiving post-ERCP rectal indomethacin. The independent risk factors included suspected SOD, hilar stricture, more cannulation attempts, inadvertent PD cannulation, and PD contrast injections.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02709421.

Update on the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure to manage pancreaticobiliary disease. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event of ERCP with a significant burden of morbidity and cost.

RECENT FINDINGS

Appropriate indication and counseling is mandatory especially for patients at increased risk for PEP such as those with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, pancreatic indications, and a prior history of PEP. Guidewire-facilitated deep cannulation is favored over contrast injection. High-quality trials support the use of rectal administered non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and pancreatic duct stent placement for high-risk patients. There is emerging evidence favoring the use of rectal NSAIDs and aggressive hydration in average-risk patients though further studies are required. There is also growing interest in the use of combination therapies as well such as pancreatic stents in combination with NSAIDs. The initial step towards PEP prevention involves careful patient selection and informed decision-making. Endoscopists should use several approaches to mitigate the risk of PEP, including guidewire-assisted cannulation, pancreatic stent placement, and rectal NSAIDs use for high-risk patients. The exact role of aggressive hydration and combination therapies needs to be further investigated.

Rectal Indomethacin Is Protective against Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aim

Rectal indomethacin was reported to be effective for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis. However, the preventive effect of indomethacin for average-risk patients remains unclear. Recently, some conflicting evidence was addressed by recent articles. We aimed to determine the protective role of indomethacin in PEP based on the latest available literature.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify related articles published before October 2016. Studies that evaluated the administration of indomethacin in the prevention of PEP were included in the analysis. We adopted a random-effects model to calculate the overall relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

Ten trials from an initial search were finally included in the meta-analysis. The administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP in consecutive ERCP population (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.77). There was no significant heterogeneity across included studies (I² = 14.2%, P = 0.31). Further subgroup analyses also revealed that rectal indomethacin could protect the individuals at high and average risks and reduced severity of PEP. Pre-ERCP administration of indomethacin seemed to be better than the post-ERCP given. There was no evidence of significant publication bias.

Conclusions

Rectal administration of indomethacin is an effective approach to prevent the incidence of PEP in both high- and average-risk populations undergoing ERCP. However, more high-quality RCTs are needed to further investigate the optimal timing for the administration of indomethacin.

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

Background

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Pre-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies have reported that peri-procedural administration of rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Based on these studies, gastrointestinal (GI) societies recommend prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP. However, recent studies have reported contradictory results. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled relative risk (RR) of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in unselected patients who received rectal indomethacin before the ERCP (pre-ERCP) compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through September 1, 2017) to identify randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the role of pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin in reducing the risk of PEP in unselected patients undergoing ERCP. The databases included Ovid, Medline, In-Process, and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Web of Science. We calculated a pooled estimate of the RR of PEP in patients who received pre-ERCP rectal indomethacin compared to patients who received pre-ERCP rectal placebo. The meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 2229 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. There were 1143 patients in the rectal indomethacin group and 1086 patients in the rectal placebo group. There were 71 events of PEP in the rectal indomethacin group and 114 events of PEP in the rectal placebo group. Pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the risk of PEP compared to pre-ERCP rectal placebo (RR 0.60, 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; p<0.0001). There was no heterogeneity between the studies (I² = 0).

CONCLUSION

The results of this meta-analysis support the routine pre-ERCP administration of rectal indomethacin in unselected patients to prevent PEP.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Indomethacin and diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diclofenac and indomethacin are the most studied drugs for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, there are no prospective, randomized multicenter trials with a sufficient number of patients for correct evaluation of their efficacy. Our aim was to evaluate all prospective trials published in full text that studied the efficacy of diclofenac or indomethacin and were controlled with placebo or non-treatment for the prevention of PEP in adult patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

Systematic search of databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane) for relevant studies published from inception to 30 June 2016.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis of 4741 patients from 17 trials showed that diclofenac or indomethacin significantly decreased the risk ratio (RR) of PEP to 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P = .0001), number needed to treat (NNT) was 20, and the reduction of RR of moderate to severe PEP was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.43-0.97; P = .0339). The efficacy of indomethacin compared with diclofenac was similar (P = .98). The efficacy of indomethacin or diclofenac did not differ according to timing (P = .99) or between patients with average-risk and high-risk for PEP (P = .6923). The effect of non-rectal administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was not significant (P = .1507), but the rectal route was very effective (P = .0005) with an NNT of 19. The administration of indomethacin or diclofenac was avoided in patients with renal failure. Substantial adverse events were not detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of rectally administered diclofenac or indomethacin before or closely after ERCP is inexpensive and safe and is recommended in every patient (without renal failure) undergoing ERCP. (Registration number: CRD42016042726, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.).

Clinical efficacy of high retention enema with Chaishao Chengqi decoction modified with salvia miltiorrhiza in prevention of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

AIM

To investigate the efficacy of high retention enema with Chaishao Chengqi decoction modified with salvia miltiorrhiza in the prevention of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Eighty-three patients who would undergo ERCP were randomly divided into a treatment group and a control group. Both groups were treated by fasting, rehydration, acid suppression, inhibition of pancreatic enzyme activity, use of antibiotics and other routine treatments. The treatment group was additionally treated with high retention enema by Chaishao Chengqi decoction modified with salvia miltiorrhiza 6 h before ERCP and 1 h after ERCP, twice a day. Before and after treatment, amylase (AMS) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP) were detected. Meanwhile, cannulation time, operative time, postoperative abdominal pain, hospital stays, and hospitalization cost were compared.

RESULTS

One patient in the treatment group and two patients in the control group developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), and there was no significant difference in the rate of PEP between the two groups (P > 0.05). AMS at 3 h, AMS and Hs-CRP at 12 h and 24 h, the rate and degree of abdominal pain, the rate of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEH), hospital stays, and hospitalization cost were all significantly better in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in cannulation time, operative time or Hs-CRP at 3 h.

CONCLUSION

High retention enema with Chaishao Chengqi decoction modified with salvia miltiorrhiza can effectively reduce the incidence of PEH, lower AMS and Hs-CRP, reduce the incidence of abdominal pain, shorten the length of hospital stay and reduce hospitalization costs, although it has no obvious effect on ERCP operative time and the incidence of PEP.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in unselected patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis in unselected patients remained controversial. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients.

METHODS

An electronic literature search in the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed was carried out for randomized controlled trials comparing rectal indomethacin or diclofenac with placebo in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate methodological quality. The data were carried out in forest plots using fixed-effect methods, and random-effect methods were used when heterogeneity was significant.

RESULTS

A total of nine trials were included in our final analysis. Rectal NSAIDs were effective to reduce the incidence of PEP in unselected patients (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.79), especially for moderate-to-severe PEP (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.17-0.79). Both indomethacin (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88) and diclofenac (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.12-0.69) were significantly efficacious. Rectal NSAIDs given pre-ERCP showed significant efficacy (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.39-0.71), whether when given within 30 min pre-ERCP (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.42-0.92) or not (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67).

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs are effective in the prevention of PEP in unselected patients.

Efficacy and safety of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are not commonly used clinically for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for post-ERCP prophylaxis, we systematically reviewed sixteen randomized controlled trials (involving 6458 patients) that compared rectal NSAIDs with placebo or no treatment for post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis updated to August 2016. GRADE framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. There was “high quality” evidence that rectal NSAIDs were associated with significant reduction in the risk of overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.42–0.71). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that diclofenac (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19–0.90) was probably superior to indomethacin (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45–0.75), post-ERCP administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24–0.89) was probably superior to pre-ERCP (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42–0.67), and that mixed-risk population received more benefits (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33–0.88) than average-risk population (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41–0.88), but less than high-risk population (RR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19–0.91). Moreover, “high quality” evidence showed that rectal NSAIDs were safe when given as a standard dose (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.47–1.36). In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed that rectal NSAIDs are effective and safe in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in populations with all levels of risk.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic supplementary material

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

ERCP in infants, children and adolescents is feasible and safe: results from a tertiary care center

Background

Indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in children differ from adults. Paucity of data and concerns about potential lower effectiveness and more side effects limit its use even in high volume centers. We retrospectively analyzed indications, success rates, limitations, and side effects of ERCPs in children <18 years.

Methods

From January 2012 to March 2015, 54 ERCPs were performed in 31 children (median age 11 (0-17) years; median weight 22 (3.3-142.7) kg) with suspected choledocholithiasis (n = 13 interventions in 9 patients), post-transplantation anastomotic stenosis (10/4), malignancy (10/5), chronic pancreatitis (7/1), biliary atresia (6/6), anomaly (2/2), leak (4/3), or primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) (2/1). All patients were followed up as inpatients.

Results

Thirty-six therapeutic and 18 diagnostic procedures were performed by adult ERCP expert endoscopists. Successful intervention was achieved in 90.7% of cases. Failed cannulation (n = 4) was associated with lower body weight (p = 0.023). In children younger than 1 year, ERCP was significantly more often diagnostic than in patients >1 year (p < 0.001). In three of six infants with suspected atresia, surgical exploration was avoided. Five complications were recorded (9.3%), and included four episodes of mild pancreatitis (7.4% post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate) and one cholangitis in PSC. A trend towards a protective effect of pancreatic stents on PEP was observed. All complications were managed conservatively. No complications were attributed to mechanical stress on the gastrointestinal tract.

Conclusions

ERCP in newborns, infants, and adolescents can be safely performed with high technical and clinical success. Endoscopists must be aware of differing spectrum of pediatric diseases. Failed cannulation was associated with lower body weight of young children. Complications were similar to rates reported in adults.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

FINDINGS

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

INTERPRETATION

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

FUNDING

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

Does rectal indomethacin given for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis increase bleeding after biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy or cardiovascular mortality?: Post hoc analysis using prospective clinical trial data

Rectal indomethacin has been proven to be effective for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) but its impact on bleeding after biliary sphincterotomy (BABES) and cardiovascular mortality has not been extensively studied. We aimed to assess the effect of indomethacin on the rate of BABES and short-term cardiovascular mortality, particularly in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (APT).In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center study, 100 mg indomethacin or placebo was given within 1 hour before biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy to in-patients including those who are receiving APT (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] and/or clopidogrel). Cardiovascular mortality and BABES were observed for 30 days.Of 576 randomized patients (289 indomethacin, 287 placebo), 87 patients used 100 mg/day ASA and 29 patients took 75 mg/day clopidogrel, among them 5 patients were on dual APT. The ASA and clopidogrel taking patients were older than patients without APT (P < 0.001), but these groups were similar in other parameters. BABES occurred similarly in different subgroups: indomethacin (8.0%) vs placebo (9.4%) (P = 0.56), ASA (10.3%) vs non-ASA (8.4%) (P = 0.54), clopidogrel (6.9%) vs nonclopidogrel (8.8%) (P > 0.99). No BABES was observed among patients on dual APT. There was no difference in cardiovascular mortality between subgroups (P > 0.99).Results indicate that single dose of 100 mg indomethacin does not increase BABES rate and cardiovascular mortality. This result is independent from administering antiplatelet agents.

Does rectal indomethacin given for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis increase bleeding after biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy or cardiovascular mortality?: Post hoc analysis using prospective clinical trial data

Rectal indomethacin has been proven to be effective for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) but its impact on bleeding after biliary sphincterotomy (BABES) and cardiovascular mortality has not been extensively studied. We aimed to assess the effect of indomethacin on the rate of BABES and short-term cardiovascular mortality, particularly in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (APT).In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-center study, 100 mg indomethacin or placebo was given within 1 hour before biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy to in-patients including those who are receiving APT (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA] and/or clopidogrel). Cardiovascular mortality and BABES were observed for 30 days.Of 576 randomized patients (289 indomethacin, 287 placebo), 87 patients used 100 mg/day ASA and 29 patients took 75 mg/day clopidogrel, among them 5 patients were on dual APT. The ASA and clopidogrel taking patients were older than patients without APT (P < 0.001), but these groups were similar in other parameters. BABES occurred similarly in different subgroups: indomethacin (8.0%) vs placebo (9.4%) (P = 0.56), ASA (10.3%) vs non-ASA (8.4%) (P = 0.54), clopidogrel (6.9%) vs nonclopidogrel (8.8%) (P > 0.99). No BABES was observed among patients on dual APT. There was no difference in cardiovascular mortality between subgroups (P > 0.99).Results indicate that single dose of 100 mg indomethacin does not increase BABES rate and cardiovascular mortality. This result is independent from administering antiplatelet agents.