Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

The addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy to biliary stent placement and its impact on the risk of adverse events: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is not mandatory before biliary stenting. The impact of ES before biliary stent placement remains uncertain. Previous studies have reported that ES can increase adverse event rates by up to 4.5 times compared with no ES. We aimed to assess the occurrence of post-ERCP adverse events following biliary stent placement with and without ES.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Subgroup analyses were performed with patients undergoing biliary drainage due to obstruction, using metal stents, and using plastic stents. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural bleeding, perforation, stent/catheter occlusion, stent/catheter migration, and cholangitis. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics, and a random-effects model was used. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1022 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the ES and non-ES groups (odds ratio [OR], .46; 95% CI, .19-1.09; P = .08; I2 = 59%) regarding PEP; however, a significant difference in bleeding rates was found between groups, favoring non-ES (OR, 7.01; 95% CI, 2.24-21.99; P = .0008; I2 = 0%). The analysis of the occurrence of cholangitis (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, .58-2.69; P = .56; I2 = 67%), perforation (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, .07-55.73; P = .70; I2 = 58%), stent/catheter migration (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, .61-7.57; P = 0.23; I2 = 6%), and stent/catheter occlusion (OR, .91; 95% CI, .37-2.25; P = .84; I2 = 0%) did not favor either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing ES before biliary drainage does not affect the PEP rate but is associated with an increased postprocedural bleeding rate.

Synergistic effect of independent risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to examine the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included 1,273 patients with native papillae who underwent ERCP for bile duct stones in Japan. Independent PEP risk factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. Significant risk factors for PEP in the multivariate analysis were included in the final analysis to examine the synergistic effect of independent risk factors for PEP.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 45 of 1,273 patients (3.5%). Three factors including difficult cannulation ≥10 minutes, pancreatic injection, and normal serum bilirubin level were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PEP in patients with zero, one, two, and three factors were 0.5% (2/388), 1.9% (9/465), 6.0% (17/285), and 12.6% (17/135), respectively. With increasing risk factors for PEP, the incidence of PEP significantly increased (1 factor vs. 2 factors, p=0.006; 2 factors vs. 3 factors, p=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

As the number of risk factors for PEP increases, the risk of PEP may not be additive; however, it may multiply. Thus, aggressive prophylaxis for PEP is strongly recommended in patients with multiple risk factors.

Best Practices in Pancreatico-biliary Stenting and EUS-guided Drainage

Indications for endoscopic placement of endoluminal and transluminal stents have greatly expanded over time. Endoscopic stent placement is now a well-established approach for the treatment of benign and malignant biliary and pancreatic diseases (ie, obstructive jaundice, intra-abdominal fluid collections, chronic pancreatitis etc.). Ongoing refinement of technical approaches and development of novel stents is increasing the applicability and success of pancreatico-biliary stenting. In this review, we discuss the important developments in the field of pancreatico-biliary stenting, with a specific focus on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound-associated developments.

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.

Effect of Adding Intravenous Somatostatin to Rectal Indomethacin on Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients: A Double-blind Randomized Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has an important role in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary disorders.

GOALS

Considering the high prevalence and importance of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and the controversial findings, we aimed to determine the effect of adding intravenous somatostatin to rectal indomethacin on the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients.

STUDY

In this prospective study, 530 patients underwent ERCP during March 2018 and February 2019. Patients were randomized into 2 groups. The intervention group received a bolus injection of 250 μg somatostatin followed by an infusion of 500 μg of somatostatin for 2 hours. In both groups, 100 mg of pre-ERCP suppository indomethacin was administrated. All patients were screened for PEP symptoms and signs for 24 hours after ERCP (Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials code: IRCT20080921001264N11).

RESULTS

A total of 376 patients were finally analyzed. PEP was the most common adverse event with 50 (13.2%) episodes, including 21 (5.5%) mild, 23 (6.1%) moderate, and 6 (1.2%) severe. The rate of PEP was 15.2% in the control group and 11.4% in the intervention group ( P =0.666). The incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia was 21.7% in the control group and 18.2% in the intervention group ( P =0.395). No death occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study administration of somatostatin plus indomethacin could safely reduce the rate of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and PEP in the intervention group compared with the control group, but the differences were not significant. Further studies with larger sample sizes are required.

Current approaches and questions yet to be resolved for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Prophylaxis is important for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP), which is the most common and serious complication of ERCP. Although the current guidelines include independent patient- and procedure-related risk factors for PEP and available PEP prophylactic measures, the synergistic effect of these risk factors on PEP should also be considered, given that patients often harbor multiple risk factors. Furthermore, a combination of prophylactic measures is often selected in clinical practice. However, established methods estimating the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP incidence are lacking, and evidence on the impact of combining prophylactic measures on PEP should be discussed. Selection of appropriate candidate patients for ERCP is also important to reduce the incidence of PEP associated with unnecessary ERCP. ERCP indications in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones (CBDSs) and in those with suspected CBDSs with no imaging-based evidence of stones are controversial. Further studies are warranted to predict the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on PEP, determine the best prophylactic PEP measures, and identify appropriate candidates for ERCP in patients with asymptomatic CBDSs and those with suspected CBDSs.

The Safety and Efficacy of an Unflanged 4F Pancreatic Stent in Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Patients with Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Prospective Cohort Study

Prophylactic pancreatic stenting effectively reduces the rate and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the precut technique; however, studies on the optimal type and duration of the stent are still lacking. This prospective study evaluated the incidence and severity of PEP and the rate of spontaneous stent dislodgement in patients undergoing transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) accompanied by prophylactic pancreatic stenting with an unflanged plastic stent (4F × 5 cm) for difficult biliary cannulation. A total of 247 patients with naïve papilla were enrolled in this study, and data were collected prospectively. In the final analysis, 170 and 61 patients were included in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups, respectively. The incidence of PEP in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups was 3.5% and 1.6% (p = 0.679), respectively. The technical success rate of selective biliary cannulation in the TPS group was 91.8%. The spontaneous dislodgement rate of the prophylactic plastic stent was 98.4%. In conclusion, an unflanged pancreatic stent (4F × 5 cm) placement in TPS for patients with failed standard cannulation technique is a safe and effective measure due to low adverse events and few additional endoscopic procedures for removing the pancreatic duct (PD) stent.

Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Using Temporary Pancreatic Stents Versus Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Both pancreatic stenting and rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The aim of the study was to compare post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis using pancreatic stents and/or rectal NSAIDs prospectively.

METHODS

A total of 321 patients undergoing ERCP were studied. Each patient was randomly allocated to receive pancreatic stent placement (PS), 50 mg of rectal diclofenac (NSAID), or both (PS + NSAID) for PEP prophylaxis. The primary outcome was the occurrence rate of PEP, and secondary outcomes included the severity of PEP and serum pancreatic amylase and lipase levels on the day after ERCP.

RESULTS

Five patients (PS: 2/101, NSAID: 1/106, PS + NSAID: 2/102) developed PEP, and the overall occurrence rate of PEP was 1.6% (5/309). The occurrence rates of PEP in the PS, NSAID, and PS + NSAID groups were statistically equivalent with an equivalent margin of 10%. The severity of PEP was mild in all 5 patients. Median serum pancreatic amylase and lipase levels in the NSAID group were significantly lower than those in the PS and PS + NSAID groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal administration of 50 mg of diclofenac may become a first-line therapy for PEP prophylaxis in our country.

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.

Is the Combination of Rectal Diclofenac and Intravenous Ringer Lactate Superior to Individual Therapy for Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective, Open-Label, Single-Center Randomized Trial

METHODS

This was single-center, open-label, randomized trial. Patients who were undergoing ERCP and who were at high risk for the development of PEP were selected for the study. Patients were randomized into 3 treatment groups: diclofenac suppository group, RL group, and a combination group.

RESULTS

Eight of 57 patients (14.03%) in the diclofenac group, 9 of 57 patients (15.78%) in the RL group, and 6 of 57 patients (10.52%) in the combination group developed PEP. The incidence of PEP between the three groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.70). Serum amylase level of >252 U/L had 91.3% sensitivity and 92.6% specificity for the diagnosis of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis is usually mild to moderate 95% times. Female sex, age younger than 50 years, a benign indication of ERCP, and low bilirubin levels have higher chances of PEP. A combination of rectal diclofenac and hydration with RL does not offer better protection for PEP, as compared with individual prophylaxis.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

Aggressive Hydration With Ringer's Lactate in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Meta-Analysis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a dangerous complication and occurs in a considerable number of patients. However, since well-randomized controlled trials investigating aggressive hydration with Ringer's lactate are lacking, this meta-analysis assessed the role of aggressive hydration with Ringer's lactate alone or in combination with other therapies in the prevention of PEP.

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for relevant articles. The search engine was set to randomize controlled trials and prospective cohorts assessing Ringer's lactate in PEP prevention either alone or in combination with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and stent. The keywords "aggressive hydration," "Ringer's lactate," "post-ERCP pancreatitis," "NSAIDs," "stent placement," and "somatostatin analogs" were used. The search was limited to a study on humans published in English with no limitation to the study period.

Two hundred and six articles were retrieved. Only eight articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies showed a reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis using aggressive hydration with Ringer's lactate alone (odds ratio 0.23, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.40, P-value < 0.001, I² for heterogeneity = 0%, P-value = 0.61, Chi-square value 1.83, and degrees of freedom (df) 3. In addition, the combination of Ringer's lactate with stents or NSAIDs was superior to Ringer's lactate alone (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.41 - 0.98, P-value < 0.04, I² for heterogeneity = 0%, P-value = 0.48, Chi-square value 2.47, and df 3). Aggressive hydration with Ringer's lactate alone was effective in the prevention of PEP with a superior effect when combined with stents and NSAIDs.

Transabdominal ultrasonography to reduce the burden of X-ray imaging in prophylactic pancreatic stent localization after ERCP-A prospective trial

Background

Before performing endoscopy to remove prophylactic pancreatic stents placed in patients with high risk of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), X‐ray imaging is recommended to confirm the stents position in the pancreatic duct.

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of prophylactic pancreatic stent detection by transabdominal ultrasonography, to reduce the burden of X‐ray imaging, which is currently the golden standard.

Methods

All patients who received a pancreatic stent for PEP prophylaxis were included in the present prospective trial. First, stent position was determined by transabdominal ultrasonography. Afterwards, it was verified by X‐ray imaging. Retained stents were removed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Dislocated stents needed no further intervention.

Results

Fourty‐one patients were enrolled in this study. All prophylactic pancreatic stents were straight 6 cm long 5 Fr stents with external flap. All stents were removed between day 1 and 10 (median: 3 days) in all cases. In 34 of 41 cases (83.0%), the pancreatic stent was still in place on the day of examination. Twenty‐nine of 34 (85.3%) stents were detected correctly by transabdominal ultrasonography. Overlying gas prevented visualization of the pancreas in 3/41 (7.3%) cases. Sensitivity of sonographic detection of the stent was 93.5% (29/31). Six of seven stents were determined correctly as dislocated by ultrasonography. Here, specificity was 85.7%. A positive predictive value of 96.7% (29/30) was examined. The negative predictive value was 75.0% (6/8).

Conclusion

Transabdominal ultrasonography detects the majority of prophylactic pancreatic stents. Thereby, it helps to identify patients with an indication for endoscopy sufficiently. X‐ray imaging could subsequently be omitted in about 70% of examinations, reducing the radiation exposure for the patient and the endoscopy staff.

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.

Efficacy of Epinephrine Injection in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Rectal indomethacin or a topical spray of epinephrine to the papilla of Vater has each shown efficacy alone in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). We supposed that a submucosal epinephrine injection would be more effective and longer acting than a topical epinephrine spray and therefore would further reduce the incidence of PEP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of 412 patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) between January 2017 and December 2019. These patients were divided into 2 groups: the indomethacin group and the indomethacin plus the submucosal epinephrine injection group. The incidence rates and severity of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, other outcomes, and any other adverse events were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and procedure-related parameters were similar between the 2 groups. The incidence of PEP was 0.4% in the epinephrine group compared with 5.1% in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Post-ERCP hyperamylasemia occurred in 24.6% of patients in the indomethacin group, whereas 7.6% of patients in the epinephrine group developed this condition; the difference was significant (P<0.001). Postsphincterotomy bleeding occurred in 5 patients, all of whom were in the indomethacin group (P<0.001). Other adverse events, including arrhythmias, acute coronary events, stroke, or hypertension were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Addition of a submucosal epinephrine injection in conjunction with rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of PEP, post-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and postsphincterotomy bleeding.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alleviate severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by inhibiting inflammation and reducing apoptosis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The prophylactic effect of nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis has been observed for a long time. However, whether the selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs possess similar abilities and the mechanisms by which nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs work remain unclear. The present study aimed to determine the protective effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-ERCP pancreatitis in a rat model and examine underlying mechanisms.

METHODS

Thirty-two female rats were equally and randomly divided into four groups: the sham group, post-ERCP pancreatitis model group, indomethacin-pretreated group, and parecoxib-pretreated group. Indomethacin or parecoxib was delivered 30 min prior to surgery; 24 h after post-ERCP pancreatitis establishment, the rats were sacrificed. Serum amylase and lipase activities, inflammatory cytokine release, pancreatic histopathological scores, neutrophil infiltration, and the expression pattern cyclooxygenase at the protein level and pancreatic apoptosis were quantified and analyzed.

RESULTS

Both indomethacin and parecoxib inhibited the activities of serum amylase and lipase and reduced the severity of pancreatic histopathology. Mechanistically, both drugs decreased the expression level of cyclooxygenase 2; however, they had no influence on the cyclooxygenase 1 protein level. Moreover, they reduced inflammatory cytokine release, neutrophil infiltration into the pancreas, and NF-κB p65 activation. Notably, we found that apoptotic cells in the pancreas were remarkably diminished after the administration of both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both selective and nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs exert protective effects against post-ERCP pancreatitis by restraining inflammation and reducing acinar cell apoptosis through the inhibition of cyclooxygenase 2.

Rectal indomethacin with topical epinephrine versus indomethacin alone for preventing Post-ERCP pancreatitis - A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have compared the utility of rectal indomethacin with topical epinephrine (IE) sprayed on duodenal papilla and rectal indomethacin alone (IS) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of using the combination prophylaxis as oppose to rectal indomethacin alone.

METHODS

The following database were searched for our systematic review: PubMed∖Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Primary outcome was incidence of PEP and secondary outcomes were adverse events and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3 studies (all RCTs) with 2244 patients (1132 in IS and 1112 in IE group) were included. The IE group did not demonstrate any significant benefit over IS group in preventing PEP (RR: 1.15, 95% CI 0.62-2.2), mortality (RR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.22-3.24) or overall adverse events (RR: 1.3, 95% CI 0.93-1.7).

CONCLUSION

The combination of rectal indomethacin and topical epinephrine failed to demonstrate any benefit over indomethacin alone in preventing PEP, decreasing mortality and overall adverse events.

Criteria for difficult biliary cannulation: start to count

OBJECTIVE

In European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, biliary cannulation of native papilla is defined as difficult in the presence of >5 papilla contacts, >5 min cannulation time or >1 unintended pancreatic duct cannulation (5-5-2). The aim is to test 5-5-2-criteria in a single-center practice predicting the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), and to study the efficacy of transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS) as an advanced method for biliary cannulation.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 821 patients with native papilla were analyzed. Primary cannulation was the first method chosen for cannulation (sphincterotome and a guidewire). Advanced cannulation method was endoscopist-chosen cannulation method after failed primary cannulation.

RESULTS

Primary cannulation succeeded in 599 (73%) patients in a median of 2 min. TPBS ± needle knife resulted in a 90% success rate. The final cannulation success was 814 (99.1%) cases in a median of 5.3 min. PEP risk was 4.0%. When primary cannulation succeeded, the PEP rate was 2.3%. When advanced methods were needed, the PEP rate increased to 13.5%. Altogether 311 (37.9%) patients fulfilled at least one 5-5-2-criterion. In patients without 5-5-2-criteria, the primary cannulation succeeded in 79.6% (n = 477), compared to 20.4% (n = 122) with the criteria, P < 0.001, indicating the need to exchange the cannulation method instead of persistence. If all the 5-5-2-criteria were present, the risk of PEP was 12.7%.

CONCLUSION

The results support the use of the 5-5-2-criteria for difficult cannulation. TPBS is an effective advanced cannulation method with an acceptable complication rate.

A Randomized Trial of Topical Epinephrine and Rectal Indomethacin for Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients

INTRODUCTION

Rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine have separately shown efficacy in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in randomized controlled trials. We hypothesized that the combination of indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine on the duodenal papillae would further reduce PEP than when indomethacin was used alone.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, double-blinded, randomized trial of rectal indomethacin alone vs a combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP and the secondary outcome was the severity of PEP. A 2-tailed Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the difference in the proportion of patients with PEP in the indomethacin alone vs the combination group.

RESULTS

A total of 960 patients (mean age 52.33 ± 14.96 years; 551 [57.4%] females) were randomized and 959 completed follow-up. The baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Women <50 years of age (25.4%) and difficult cannulation (84.9%) were the most common PEP risk factors. The incidence of PEP was 6.4% in the indomethacin alone group (n = 482) compared to 6.7% in the combination group (n = 477; P = 0.87). Severe PEP was found in 5 (12%) and 7 (16%) patients in the indomethacin alone and combination groups, respectively (P = 0.88). The overall mortality was 0.6%, which was unrelated to the primary outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of rectal indomethacin and topical spray of epinephrine does not reduce the incidence of PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone in high-risk patients; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02116309.

How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Recent advances in prophylaxis have improved but not eliminated this problem, underscoring the importance of ongoing research toward this goal. This review aims to provide an evidence-based approach to post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention through patient selection, risk stratification, procedural technique, and multimodality prophylaxis, and discusses ongoing and future research initiatives in this important area.

Chronic Use of Statins and Their Effect on Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Background and Aims: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the major complications of ERCP. Thus, several non-invasive as well as invasive strategies have been investigated as preventative therapies for PEP with various efficacy. Methods: We enrolled any patients who underwent ERCP both at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center in Jerusalem and EMMS Nazareth hospital. Association between use of statins and different variables were assessed with univariate tests (chi-squared for categorical variables). Predictors of incidence of PEP and severity of pancreatitis were computed using conditional logistic regression, correcting for potential confounding factors. Results: 958 subjects were analyzed. Average age was 62.04 ± 21.18 years (median 68 years). Most of the patients were female (n = 558, 58.2%), Jewish (n = 827, 86.3%), and inpatients (n = 631, 65.9%). Only few ERCPs were performed emergently (n = 40, 4.2%). Twenty-Seven patients repeated the exam. Overall incidence of PEP/hyperamylasemia was 16.8% (n = 161); with a 5.6% (n = 54) incidence of hyperamylasemia and a 11.2% (n = 107) incidence of pancreatitis. Overall, 6 cases of severe pancreatitis were identified. The logistic regression analysis demonstrated that chronic use of statins is a protective factor in preventing development of PEP/hyperamylasemia [OR 0.436 [95%CI 0.303-0.627], p < 0.001]; Particularly, the PEP OR was of 0.318 [95%CI 0.169-0.597], p < 0.001 and the hyperamylasemia OR was of 0.565 [95%CI 0.372-0.859], p = 0.008. No significant predictor could be found for the risk of developing severe PEP. Conclusions: Our data support the possibility of exploiting statins as preventive agents for PEP. However, further studies, mainly RCTs, are warranted in order to replicate our findings.

Recent advances in understanding and managing acute pancreatitis

This review highlights advances made in recent years in the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis (AP). We focus on epidemiological, clinical, and management aspects of AP. Additionally, we discuss the role of using risk stratification tools to guide clinical decision making. The majority of patients suffer from mild AP, and only a subset develop moderately severe AP, defined as a pancreatic local complication, or severe AP, defined as persistent organ failure. In mild AP, management typically involves diagnostic evaluation and supportive care resulting usually in a short hospital length of stay (LOS). In severe AP, a multidisciplinary approach is warranted to minimize morbidity and mortality over the course of a protracted hospital LOS. Based on evidence from guideline recommendations, we discuss five treatment interventions, including intravenous fluid resuscitation, feeding, prophylactic antibiotics, probiotics, and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in acute biliary pancreatitis. This review also highlights the importance of preventive interventions to reduce hospital readmission or prevent pancreatitis, including alcohol and smoking cessation, same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis, and chemoprevention and fluid administration for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Our review aims to consolidate guideline recommendations and high-quality studies published in recent years to guide the management of AP and highlight areas in need of research.

Recent advances in understanding and managing acute pancreatitis

This review highlights advances made in recent years in the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis (AP). We focus on epidemiological, clinical, and management aspects of AP. Additionally, we discuss the role of using risk stratification tools to guide clinical decision making. The majority of patients suffer from mild AP, and only a subset develop moderately severe AP, defined as a pancreatic local complication, or severe AP, defined as persistent organ failure. In mild AP, management typically involves diagnostic evaluation and supportive care resulting usually in a short hospital length of stay (LOS). In severe AP, a multidisciplinary approach is warranted to minimize morbidity and mortality over the course of a protracted hospital LOS. Based on evidence from guideline recommendations, we discuss five treatment interventions, including intravenous fluid resuscitation, feeding, prophylactic antibiotics, probiotics, and timing of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in acute biliary pancreatitis. This review also highlights the importance of preventive interventions to reduce hospital readmission or prevent pancreatitis, including alcohol and smoking cessation, same-admission cholecystectomy for acute biliary pancreatitis, and chemoprevention and fluid administration for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Our review aims to consolidate guideline recommendations and high-quality studies published in recent years to guide the management of AP and highlight areas in need of research.