Prophylactic injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine oral to the papilla for prevention of postsphincterotomy bleeding

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.

Proton pump inhibitor has no effect in the prevention of post-endoscopic sphincterotomy delayed bleeding: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background and aims

Bleeding is one of the common adverse events of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which is mainly caused by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). At present, it remains unclear whether proton pump inhibitor (PPI) should be used to prevent post-EST bleeding. Therefore, we performed a randomized controlled trial to investigate whether PPI is effective in the prevention of post-EST delayed bleeding.

Methods

Consecutive eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to experimental group (PPI group) or control group (normal saline, NS group). The patients in PPI group received intravenous esomeprazole 40  mg and normal saline 100  mL every 12  h for 2  days after ERCP immediately, and followed by oral esomeprazole (Nexium) 20  mg once a day for 7  days. Correspondingly, patients in the control group received intravenous normal saline 100  mL and did not take PPIs or any acid-suppressing drugs during hospitalization and after discharge. All patients were followed up for 30  days after ERCP. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of post-EST delayed bleeding.

Results

Between July 2020 and July 2022, 290 patients were randomly assigned to PPI group (n = 146) or NS group (n = 144). 5 patients from each group were excluded from the final analysis. There were 6 patients with post-EST delayed bleeding, with an incidence rate of 2.14%. The median time of delayed bleeding was 2.5  days after ERCP. 3 cases (2.12%, 3/141) occurred in the PPI group, with 1 case of mild and 2 cases of moderate bleeding. 3 cases (2.16%, 3/139) occurred in the NS group, with 2 cases of mild and 1 case of moderate bleeding. There was no significant difference in the incidence and the severity of post-EST delayed bleeding between the two groups (p = 1.000).

Conclusion

Prophylactic use of PPI after EST does not reduce the incidence and severity of post-EST delayed bleeding in patients.

Clinical Trial Registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/searchproj.aspx, identifier ChiCTR2000034697.

Combination Topical Epinephrine and Non-steroidal Inflammatory Drugs in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The utility of combination rectal NSAID and topical epinephrine (EI) or rectal NSAID and normal saline (SI) sprayed on duodenal papilla in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been studied but results have been conflicting.

AIMS

To evaluate the benefit of using combination prophylaxis in preventing PEP.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases in May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults patients who underwent ERCP and received EI versus SI were eligible for inclusion. The pooled effect was expressed as odds ratio (OR) to assess the rate of PEP, severity of PEP, and specific adverse events. The results were pooled using Reviewer Manager 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 4016 patients were included in the final analysis. The EI group did not demonstrate any significant benefit over SI group in preventing PEP (OR = 1.00, 95% CI [0.68, 1.45], P = 0.98), irrespective of gender or the epinephrine concentration used. The tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant with P-values of 0.66 and 0.28, respectively. The addition of topical epinephrine to rectal NSAID did not improve the rate of moderate to severe PEP (OR = 0.94, P = 0.86) or PEP in high-risk patients (OR = 1.14, 95%, P = 0.73). The rates of infection, including cholangitis and sepsis (OR = 0.63, P = 0.07), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR = 1.25, P = 0.56) and procedure-related death (OR = 0.71, P = 0.59) were similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of topical epinephrine did not demonstrate any benefit over rectal NSAID alone in preventing PEP or reducing other procedure-related adverse events.

Prevention and Management of Complications of Biliary Endoscopy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreaticobiliary disorders. ERCP is, however, associated with the risk of complications including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, infection, and instrument failure, which can often be fatal. It is, therefore, necessary to recognize the risk of ERCP-associated complications and understand the methods to prevent and treat such complications.

Novel Hemostatic Gel As Rescue Therapy for Postsphincterotomy Bleeding Refractory to Self-Expanding Metallic Stent Placement

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is commonly performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and bleeding is a severe adverse event. PuraStat is a peptide developed as a hemostatic agent for endoscopy. We report its use as a hemostatic strategy in post-ES bleeding refractory to combined hemostasis. A patient with choledocholithiasis underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for stone removal. After the ES, severe bleeding refractory to the injection of diluted epinephrine around the bleeding source and metal stent placement occurred. Hemostasis was achieved with the application of the hemostatic gel. We reported the use of novel self-assembling hemostatic gel as an effective therapeutic tool for post-ES refractory bleeding.

Rectal Indomethacin and Spraying of Duodenal Papilla With Epinephrine Increases Risk of Pancreatitis Following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin and spraying of the duodenal papilla with epinephrine might reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a randomized trial to compare the effects of the combination of indomethacin and epinephrine (IE) vs indomethacin plus saline (IS) in prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We performed a double-blind trial at 10 centers in China, from February 2017 to October 2017, of 1158 patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP. The patients were assigned randomly to groups given IE (n = 576) or IS (n = 582). All patients received a single dose of rectal indomethacin within 30 minutes before ERCP; 20 mL of dilute epinephrine (IE group) or saline (IS group) then was sprayed on the duodenal papilla at the end of ERCP. The primary outcome was the incidence of overall PEP. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The study was terminated at the interim analysis for safety concerns and futility. The groups had similar baseline characteristics. PEP developed in 49 patients in the IE group (8.5%) and in 31 patients in the IS group (5.3%) (relative risk, 1.60, 95% CI, 1.03-2.47; P = .033). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients with postsphincterotomy bleeding (2.1% in the IE group and 1.5% in the IS group) and biliary infection (1.2% in the IE group and 2.2% in the IS group).

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial, we found the combination of rectal indomethacin with papillary epinephrine spraying increased the risk of PEP compared with indomethacin alone. Spray epinephrine should not be used with rectal indomethacin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT03057769.

Bleeding risk in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Impact of the use of antithrombotic drugs

AIMS

To analyze the risk factors for hemorrhage during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and the impact of antithrombotic drugs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data sources: papers indexed in PubMed have been reviewed, as well as those found during the analysis of the bibliography of meta-analysis and reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

the references have been firstly evaluated by review of the abstract. After selecting the most significant articles (mainly randomized trials and well-designed case series) these have been deeply analyzed. Evaluation of the studies and synthesis: criteria by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine have been used for the analysis of the references and elaboration of evidence levels.

RESULTS

Seven hundred and sixty-five references were found, 753 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Twelve studies were selected during the analysis of other published articles (systematic reviews, meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines). After analyzing the title or the abstract, 655 studies were excluded. Finally, 83 high quality trials or descriptive studies have been included in the analysis.

CONCLUSION

Seven conclusions regarding the risk factors for bleeding and the impact of antithrombotic drugs have been defined.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTION

ERCP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP.

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs.

CONCLUSION

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

Selective embolization for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding: technical aspects and clinical efficacy

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the technical aspects and clinical efficacy of selective embolization for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed the records of 10 patients (3%; M:F = 6:4; mean age, 63.3 years) that underwent selective embolization for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding among 344 patients who received arteriography for nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding from 2000 to 2009. We analyzed the endoscopic procedure, onset of bleeding, underlying clinical condition, angiographic findings, interventional procedure, and outcomes in these patients.

Results

Among the 12 bleeding branches, primary success of hemostasis was achieved in 10 bleeding branches (83%). Secondary success occurred in two additional bleeding branches (100%) after repeated embolization. In 10 patients, post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleedings were detected during the endoscopic procedure (n = 2, 20%) or later (n = 8, 80%), and the delay was from one to eight days (mean, 2.9 days; ± 2.3). Coagulopathy was observed in three patients. Eight patients had a single bleeding branch, whereas two patients had two branches. On the selective arteriography, bleeding branches originated from the posterior pancreaticoduodenal artery (n = 8, 67%) and anterior pancreaticoduodenal artery (n = 4, 33%), respectively. Superselection was achieved in four branches and the embolization was performed with n-butyl cyanoacrylate. The eight branches were embolized by combined use of coil, n-butyl cyanoacrylate, or Gelfoam. After the last embolization, there was no rebleeding or complication related to embolization.

Conclusion

Selective embolization is technically feasible and an effective procedure for post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding. In addition, the posterior pancreaticoduodenal artery is the main origin of the causative vessels of post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding.