Biliary sphincterotomy is not required for bile duct stent placement

One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.

CONCLUSION

Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.

ERCP-related adverse events: incidence, mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and management

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure for pancreaticobiliary disease. While ERCP is highly effective, it is also associated with the highest adverse event (AE) rates of all commonly performed endoscopic procedures. Thus, it is critical that endoscopists and caregivers of patients undergoing ERCP have clear understandings of ERCP-related AEs.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on ERCP-related AEs. For the purposes of this review, we subdivide the presentation of each ERCP-related AE according to the following clinically relevant domains: definitions and incidence, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and recognition and management. The evidence informing this review was derived in part from a search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, performed on 1 May 20231 May 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge of ERCP-related AEs is critical not only given potential improvements in peri-procedural quality and related care that can ensue but also given the importance of reviewing these considerations with patients during informed consent. The ERCP community and researchers should aim to apply standardized definitions of AEs. Evidence-based knowledge of ERCP risk factors should inform patient care decisions during training and beyond.

Urgent and emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for gallstone-induced acute cholangitis and pancreatitis

Urgent or emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is indicated for gallstone-induced acute cholangitis and pancreatitis. The technique and optimal timing of ERCP depend on the disease state, its severity, anatomy, patient background, and the institutional situation. Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage within 24 h is recommended for moderate to severe acute cholangitis. The clinical outcomes of biliary drainage with nasobiliary drainage tube placement and plastic stent placement are comparable, and the choice is made on a case-by-case basis considering the advantages and disadvantages of each. The addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is basically not necessary when performing drainage alone, but single-session stone removal following EST is acceptable in mild to moderate cholangitis cases without antithrombotic therapy or coagulopathy. For gallstone pancreatitis, early ERCP/EST are recommended in cases with impacted gallstones in the papilla. In some cases of gallstone pancreatitis, a gallstone impacted in the papilla has already spontaneously passed into the duodenum, and early ERCP/EST lacks efficacy in such cases, with unfavorable findings of cholangitis or cholestasis. If it is difficult to diagnose the presence of gallstones impacted in the papilla on imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography can be useful in determining the indication for ERCP.

A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating PAN-PROMISE, a Patient-reported Outcome Measure to Detect Post-ERCP Morbidity

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The Cotton Consensus (CC) criteria for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) may not capture post-ERCP morbidity. PAN-PROMISE, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), was developed to quantify acute pancreatitis-related morbidity. This study aims to determine the value of PAN-PROMISE in independently defining ERCP-related morbidity.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP at 2 academic centers from September 2021 to August 2022. We administered PAN-PROMISE and assessed quality of life and work productivity at baseline, 48 to 72 hours, 7 days, and 30 days following ERCP. PEP was defined by a 3-physician committee using the CC criteria. We defined high morbidity following ERCP (elevated PROM) by an increase of PAN-PROMISE score of >7 at 7 days post-procedure. The McNemar test assessed discordance between PEP and elevated-PROM.

RESULTS

A total of 679 patients were enrolled. Choledocholithiasis (30%) and malignant biliary obstruction (29%) were the main indications for ERCP. Thirty-two patients (4.7%) developed PEP. One hundred forty-seven patients (21.6%) had an elevated PROM, whereas only 20 of them (13.4%) had PEP by the CC criteria (P < .001 for discordance). An elevated PROM strongly correlated with lower physical quality of life and increased direct and indirect health care costs ($80 and $25 per point increase in PAN-PROMISE, respectively). Patients with pancreatic cancer (odds ratio, 4.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-10.74) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.45) had the highest odds of elevated PROM.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of patients experience significant morbidity after ERCP despite not developing PEP or other adverse events. Future studies are needed to characterize better the reasons behind this increase in symptoms and potential interventions to reduce the symptom burden post-ERCP.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number, NCT05310409.

Risk of Pancreatitis Following Biliary Stenting With/Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of performing ES before biliary stent/tube placement on the occurrence of PEP.

METHODS

Three hundred seventy patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting were enrolled and randomly allocated to the ES group (n = 185) or non-ES group (n = 185). All participants were followed up for 30 days after the procedure. The data and occurrence of adverse events were prospectively collected. The primary outcome measure of this study was the incidence of PEP within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of other adverse events related to biliary stent/tube placement.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 36 patients (20.6%) in the non-ES group and in 7 patients (3.9%) in the ES group (P < .001). The difference in the incidence of PEP between the 2 groups in the per-protocol population was 16.7% (95% confidence interval, 10.1%-23.3%), which was not within the noninferiority margin of 6%. Except for bleeding, the incidences of other adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

ES before endoscopic biliary stenting could have the preventive effect on the occurrence of PEP in patients with biliary stricture. University Hospital Medical Information Network Number, UMIN000025727.University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Inutility of endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent pancreatitis after biliary metal stent placement in the patients without pancreatic duct obstruction

Background: The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been reported to be significantly higher in patients without main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction who undergo transpapillary biliary metal stent (MS) placement than in those with ordinary ERCP setting.Objective: To evaluate the benefit of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to MS placement in preventing PEP in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) without MPD obstruction.Materials and methods: In total, 160 patients who underwent initial MS placement for MBO were enrolled. Eighty-two patients underwent ES immediately prior to MS placement, whereas 78 underwent MS placement without ES. An inverse probability of treatment weighting method was adopted to adjust the differences of the patients' characteristics. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of other adverse events (bleeding, cholangitis, perforation and stent dislocation) and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.Results: The incidence of PEP was 26.8% in the ES and 23.1% in the non-ES (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] [95%CI]: 1.22, [0.60-2.51], adjusted OR [95%CI]: 1.23, [0.53-2.81], p = .63). Logistic-regression analysis revealed no factors that could be attributed to the occurrence of PEP. The incidence of other adverse events was not different between the groups. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 131 (2-465) days and 200 (4-864) days in the ES and non-ES, respectively (p = .215).Conclusions: ES prior to MS placement for patients with distal MBO without MPD obstruction does not reduce the incidence of PEP.

Brushing the distal biliary stricture in the surrounding of the papilla increased the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A retrospective study using propensity score analysis

Background and aims

Brushing cytology is useful for diagnosing biliary strictures. With regard to biliary stricture brushing at the distal common bile duct in the surrounding of the papilla, the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is unknown. Our study aimed to evaluate the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by using this procedure.

Methods

A total of 150 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-naïve patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography including biliary stricture brushing were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: the surrounding of the papilla group (n = 25) and the other group (n = 125). The primary outcome was the post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis incidence. We analyzed the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by using inverse probability of treatment weighting based on propensity scores to adjust for selection bias.

Results

The overall incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was 11.3%, and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis of the surrounding of the papilla group occurred significantly more frequently than in the other group (32.0% vs 7.2%, p < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed that this procedure was a risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (odds ratio, 10.6; 95% confidence interval, 2.82-40.2; p < 0.01). In the propensity-weighted model, this procedure was an independent risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (odds ratio, 8.42; 95% confidence interval, 2.12-32.4; p < 0.01) by multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Biliary stricture brushing at the distal common bile duct in the surrounding of the papilla may increase the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis compared with brushing other portions.

Effect of endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with biliary stricture (E-BEST): a protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to endoscopic biliary stenting to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis remains to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate the non-inferiority of non-endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting for naïve major duodenal papilla compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting in patients with biliary stricture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We designed a multicentre randomised controlled trial, for which we will recruit 370 patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting from 26 high-volume institutions in Japan. Patients will be randomly allocated to the endoscopic sphincterotomy group or the non-endoscopic sphincterotomy group. The main outcome measure is the incidence of pancreatitis within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Data will be analysed on completion of the study. We will calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the incidence of pancreatitis in each group and analyse weather the difference in both groups with 95% CIs is within the non-inferiority margin (6%) using the Wald method.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the institutional review board of Hokkaido University Hospital (IRB: 016-0181). Results will be submitted for presentation at an international medical conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The University Hospital Medical Information Network ID: UMIN000025727 Pre-results.

The Wire-Grasping Method as a New Technique for Forceps Biopsy of Biliary Strictures: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study of Effectiveness

Background/Aims

Transpapillary forceps biopsy is an effective diagnostic technique in patients with biliary stricture. This prospective study aimed to determine the usefulness of the wire-grasping method as a new technique for forceps biopsy.

Methods

Consecutive patients with biliary stricture or irregularities of the bile duct wall were randomly allocated to either the direct or wire-grasping method group. In the wire-grasping method, forceps in the duodenum grasps a guide-wire placed into the bile duct beforehand, and then, the forceps are pushed through the papilla without endoscopic sphincterotomy. In the direct method, forceps are directly pushed into the bile duct alongside a guide-wire. The primary endpoint was the success rate of obtaining specimens suitable for adequate pathological examination.

Results

In total, 32 patients were enrolled, and 28 (14 in each group) were eligible for analysis. The success rate was significantly higher using the wire-grasping method than the direct method (100% vs 50%, p=0.016). Sensitivity and accuracy for the diagnosis of cancer were comparable in patients with the successful procurement of biopsy specimens between the two methods (91% vs 83% and 93% vs 86%, respectively).

Conclusions

The wire-grasping method is useful for diagnosing patients with biliary stricture or irregularities of the bile duct wall.

Rectal Indomethacin Reduces Pancreatitis in High- and Low-Risk Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Most studies of its efficacy included high-risk cohorts and excluded low-risk patients, including those with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the potential of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a variety of patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 4017 patients who underwent ERCP at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, from 2009 and 2015, including 823 patients with malignant biliary obstruction. After June 2012, with a few exceptions, patients received indomethacin after their procedure. We collected data from patients' records on demographic and clinical features, procedures, and development of PEP. PEP was defined by consensus criteria. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between indomethacin and PEP.

RESULTS

Rectal indomethacin reduced the odds of PEP by 65% (OR, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.51; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 83% (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P < .001). In patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin reduced the risk of PEP by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 80% (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P < .001). Among patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin provided the greatest benefit to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: 2.31% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed PEP vs 7.53% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P < .001) and 0.59% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed moderate-to-severe PEP vs 4.32% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP that included low-risk patients and patients with malignant biliary obstruction, rectal indomethacin was associated with a significant decrease in the absolute rate and severity of pancreatitis.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after biliary stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) is often carried out prior to placement of a biliary stent apparently to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, the protective effect of ES prior to biliary stenting is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the risk of PEP and other complications after the placement of biliary stent with or without ES in patients with biliary obstruction and bile leak.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic search in several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies (OS) comparing the risk of PEP after biliary stenting with or without ES. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of adverse outcomes into fixed or random effect model meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (five RCT and 12 OS) with a total of 2710 patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed in the risk of PEP with biliary stenting with and without ES (RD -0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.03, 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of stenting for biliary obstruction, no difference in the risk of PEP was observed with or without ES. However, ES was associated with lower risk of PEP in patients undergoing biliary stenting for bile leak (RD -0.05; CI -0.10, -0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ES shows risk reduction in prevention of PEP in patients undergoing endoscopic stenting for bile leak. However, placement of biliary stent without ES is not associated with an increased risk of PEP in patients with distal bile duct obstruction with involvement of pancreatic duct.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 RECEPTOR ANTAGONISTS CLOPIDOGREL, PRASUGREL, TICAGRELOR: For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).

WARFARIN

The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.

DIRECT ORAL ANTICOAGULANTS DOAC

For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30-50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Biliary stenting with or without sphincterotomy for malignant biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis

AIM

To investigate the benefits of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) before stent placement by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases up to March 2014 were searched. The primary outcome was incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and successful stent insertion rate. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-ERCP bleeding, stent migration and occlusion. The free software Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Three studies (n = 338 patients, 170 in the EST group and 168 in the non-EST group) were included. All three studies described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Three RCTs, including 338 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the groups. Although EST reduced the incidence of PEP, it also led to a higher incidence of post-ERCP bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.12-0.93, P = 0.04; OR = 9.70, 95%CI: 1.21-77.75, P = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EST before stent placement may be useful in reducing the incidence of PEP. However, EST-related complications, such as bleeding and perforation, may offset this effect.

Endoscopic biliary stenting and pancreatitis

Endoscopic biliary stenting across the duodenal papilla can obstruct the adjacent pancreatic orifice and disturb the flow of pancreatic juice, which may result in pancreatitis. However, the relationship of endoscopic biliary stenting to post-procedure pancreatitis has not been thoroughly examined. Therefore, we have reviewed the published literature on this issue. Although biliary stenting, especially with large-bore and self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs), has been considered a possible additional risk factor for pancreatitis following biliary stenting, most studies have not provided convincing supporting evidence; this failure may be due to inadequate study design or insufficient numbers of subjects. It also remains unclear whether endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) performed prior to biliary stenting decreases the incidence of post-stenting pancreatitis; some recent studies have claimed that EST is not necessary before biliary stenting, even with placement of SEMSs. Well-designed studies with a large number of subjects will be needed to clarify these issues.