Randomized controlled trial for efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

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.

Nafamostat Reduces the Incidence of post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). As the management of pancreatitis is limited, clinical approaches focus on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). In theory, the serine protease inhibitor nafamostat can reduce circulating inflammatory mediators in pancreatitis. We aimed to investigate the effect of nafamostat in the prevention of PEP in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022367988). We systematically searched 5 databases without any filters on September 26, 2022. The eligible population was adult patients undergoing ERCP. We compared the PEP preventive effect of nafamostat to placebo. The main outcome was the occurrence of PEP. We calculated the pooled odds ratios (ORs), mean differences, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and multilevel model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool. Seven randomized controlled trials involving 2,962 patients were eligible for inclusion. Nafamostat reduced the overall incidence rate of PEP (20 mg, OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30-0.82 and 50 mg, OR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.24-0.96). However, the occurrence of mild PEP was significantly reduced only in the subgroup receiving 20 mg nafamostat (OR, 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.77). Overall, nafamostat therapy reduced moderate PEP in high-risk patients (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.0.4-0.84) and mild PEP in low-risk patients (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.17-0.61). Nafamostat is an effective therapy in the prevention of mild post-ERCP pancreatitis. Further research is required to determine the cost-effectiveness of this therapy.

Efficacy of nafamostat mesylate in the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of nafamostat on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). PubMed, Web of Science, and Ichushi Web were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using nafamostat to prevent PEP. In subgroup analyses, we studied the preventive effects of nafamostat according to the severity of PEP, risk category, and dose. A random-effects model was adopted; heterogeneity between studies was examined using the chi-squared test and I2 statistics. This analysis uses the PRISMA statement as general guidance. 9 RCTs involving 3321 patients were included. The risk of PEP was lower in the nafamostat group than in the control group [4.4% vs. 8.3%, risk ratio (RR): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.68]. In subgroup analyses, the protective effects were evident in low-risk patients for PEP before ERCP (RR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.55). The association between PEP and nafamostat was significant only in patients who developed mild PEP (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.69). The benefits were independent of the dose. The prophylactic use of nafamostat resulted in a lower risk of PEP. The subgroup analyses suggested uncertain benefits for severe PEP or high-risk patients for PEP. This warrants further investigation through additional RCTs.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective, randomized, and controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing 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.

Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 2–10%, which could be as high as 30–50% in high-risk cases. PEP is severe in up to 5% of cases, with potential for life-threatening complications, including multi-organ failure, peripancreatic fluid collections, and death in up to 1% of cases. The risk of PEP is potentially predictable and may be modified with pharmacological measures and endoscopist technique. This review covers the definition, epidemiology and risk factors for PEP, with a focus on the latest evidence-based medical and endoscopic strategies to prevent and manage PEP.

The effect of nafamostat mesilate infusion after ERCP for post-ERCP pancreatitis

Background

Nafamostat mesilate decreases the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, no studies have administered nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. So we investigated if the infusion of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP can affect the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients.

Methods

In a tertiary hospital, 350 high-risk patients of PEP were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 201 patients received nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. We performed a propensity score matching to adjust for the significant different baseline characteristics. The incidence and severity of PEP were evaluated according to the infusion of nafamostat mesilate. The risk factors of PEP were also analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

Results

The baseline characteristics were not different after the matching. The PEP rate (17.4% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.141) was insignificant. Among the PEP patients, mild PEP was significantly higher in the nafamostat mesilate group (85.7% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.021). Only one patient in the nafamostat mesilate group developed severe PEP. Although young age (odds ratio [OR] 3.60, 95% CI 1.09–11.85, P = 0.035) was a risk factor, nafamostat mesilate (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.09–0.98, P = 0.047) was a protective factor for moderate to severe PEP.

Conclusions

The administration of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP in high-risk patients was not effective in preventing PEP, but may attenuate the severity of PEP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12876-022-02345-3.

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.

A Randomized Comparative Study of 24- and 6-Hour Infusion of Nafamostat Mesilate for the Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Prospective Randomized Comparison Trial

OBJECTIVES

Although prolonged intravenous infusion (24 hours) of nafamostat mesilate is effective for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it requires hospitalization and is expensive. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 24- versus 6-hour intravenous infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

A total of 382 patients who underwent ERCP were randomly assigned into 2 groups: 24 hours or 6 hours. In both groups, nafamostat mesilate (20 mg) infusion was initiated up to an hour before ERCP and continued for either 24 or 6 hours.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 2.4% (9/371). The rates of PEP following 24- and 6-hour infusion were 2.8% (5/179) and 2.1% (4/192), respectively (P = 0.744). No significant difference was observed in the severity of pancreatitis between the groups. On multivariate analysis, increasing pancreatic duct cannulations (odds ratio, 1.685; 95% confidence interval, 1.036-2.741; P = 0.036) was identified as a statistically significant risk factor of PEP.

CONCLUSIONS

No difference was found in the incidence of PEP regardless of the duration of nafamostat mesilate infusion. Therefore, 6-hour infusion of 20 mg nafamostat mesilate may be useful for the prevention of PEP in an outpatient setting.