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

Risks of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis After Liver Transplantation

Biliary complications are common after liver transplantation (LT). Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the preferred method to treat biliary complications. Nevertheless, ERCP is not without complications and may have a greater complication rate in the LT population. Knowledge of the prevalence, severity, and possible risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in LT recipients is limited. Therefore, this study aims to determine the incidence and severity of PEP and identify potential risk factors in LT recipients. This retrospective cohort included patients ≥18 years who underwent ≥1 ERCP procedures after LT between January 2010 and October 2021. Two hundred thirty-two patients were included, who underwent 260 LTs and 1125 ERCPs. PEP occurred after 23 ERCP procedures (2%) with subsequent mortality in three (13%). Multivariate logistic regression identified wire cannulation of the pancreatic duct as a significant risk factor for PEP (OR, 3.21). The complication rate of PEP after LT in this study was shown to be low and is lower compared to patients without a history of LT. Nevertheless, the mortality rate of this group of patients was notably higher.

Artificial intelligence in a prediction model for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

In this study we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence-based model for predicting postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed ERCP patients at Nagoya University Hospital (NUH) and Toyota Memorial Hospital (TMH). We constructed two prediction models, a random forest (RF), one of the machine-learning algorithms, and a logistic regression (LR) model. First, we selected features of each model from 40 possible features. Then the models were trained and validated using three fold cross-validation in the NUH cohort and tested in the TMH cohort. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess model performance. Finally, using the output parameters of the RF model, we classified the patients into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups.

RESULTS

A total of 615 patients at NUH and 544 patients at TMH were enrolled. Ten features were selected for the RF model, including albumin, creatinine, biliary tract cancer, pancreatic cancer, bile duct stone, total procedure time, pancreatic duct injection, pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique without a pancreatic stent, intraductal ultrasonography, and bile duct biopsy. In the three fold cross-validation, the RF model showed better predictive ability than the LR model (AUROC 0.821 vs. 0.660). In the test, the RF model also showed better performance (AUROC 0.770 vs. 0.663, P = 0.002). Based on the RF model, we classified the patients according to the incidence of PEP (2.9%, 10.0%, and 23.9%).

CONCLUSION

We developed an RF model. Machine-learning algorithms could be powerful tools to develop accurate prediction models.

NSAIDs do not reduce severity among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacological and Endoscopic Interventions for Prophylaxis of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Background

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) represents the most common serious complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are the prophylactic interventions with more evidence and efficacy; however, PEP still represents a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Chronic statin use has been proposed as a prophylactic method that could be cheap and relatively safe. However, the evidence is conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the impact of endoscopic and pharmacological interventions including chronic statin and aspirin use, on the development of PEP.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago from January 2015 to March 2018. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression.

Results

A total of 681 ERCPs were included in the study. Twelve (1.76%) developed PEP. Univariate, multivariate, and subgroup analyses did not show any association between chronic statin or aspirin use and PEP. PDS and rectal indomethacin were protective in patients undergoing pancreatic duct injection. Pancreatic duct injection, female sex, and younger age were associated with a higher risk. History of papillotomy was associated with lower risk only in the univariate analysis (all P values < 0.05).

Conclusion

Chronic use of statins and aspirin appears to add no additional benefit to prevent ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs, and PDS after appropriate patient selection continue to be the main prophylactic measures. The lower incidence at our center compared with the reported data can be explained by the high rates of rectal indomethacin and PDS, the use of noninvasive diagnostic modalities for patient selection, and the expertise of the endoscopists.

ORAL N-ACETYL CYSTEINE VERSUS RECTAL INDOMETHACIN FOR PREVENTION OF POST ERCP PANCREATITIS: A MULTICENTER MULTINATIONAL RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

BACKGROUND

This multicenter multinational RCT designed to compare the efficacy of suppository indomethacin and NAC for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

During a 6-month period, all of the ERCP cases in seven referral centers were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg oral NAC, indomethacin suppository 100 mg, 1200 mg oral NAC plus indomethacin suppository 100 mg or placebo 2 hours before ERCP. The primary outcomes were the rate and severity of any PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 432 patients included (41.4% male). They were originally citizens of 6 countries (60.87% Caucasian). They were randomly allocated to receive either NAC (group A, 84 cases), rectal indomethacin (group B, 138 cases), NAC + rectal indomethacin (group C, 115 cases) or placebo (group D, 95 cases). The rate of PEP in groups A, B and C in comparison with placebo were 10.7%, 17.4%, 7.8% vs 20% (P=0.08, 0.614 & 0.01 respectively). The NNT for NAC, indomethacin and NAC + indomethacin was 11, 38 and 8 respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oral NAC is more effective than rectal indomethacin when compared to placebo for prevention of PEP and the combination of NAC and Indomethacin had the lowest incidence of PEP and may have synergistic effect in preventing of PEP (IRCT20201222049798N1; 29/12/2020).

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis assessed using criteria for acute pancreatitis

Background and Aim

International consensus on the definition and classification of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has been reached. However, the diagnosis and severity of PEP are often assessed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for acute pancreatitis (AP). This study determined the incidence, severity, and risk factors of PEP diagnosed according to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP in a large cohort.

Methods

This prospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted at five high-volume centers included 1932 patients who underwent ERCP-related procedures. The incidence, severity, and risk factors for PEP were evaluated.

Results

PEP occurred in 142 patients (7.3%); it was mild in 117 patients (6.0%) and severe in 25 patients (1.3%). According to the Cotton criteria, PEP occurred in 87 patients (4.5%); it was mild in 54 patients (2.8%), moderate in 20 patients (1.0%), and severe in 13 patients (0.7%). In the multivariate analysis, female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.239; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.546-3.243), naïve papilla (OR 3.047; 95% CI 1.803-5.150), surgically-altered gastrointestinal anatomy (OR 2.538; 95% CI 1.342-4.802), procedure time after reaching the papilla (OR 1.009; 95% CI 1.001-1.017), pancreatic duct injection (OR 2.396; 95% CI 1.565-3.669), and intraductal ultrasonography (OR 1.641; 95% CI 1.024-2.629) were independent risk factors.

Conclusion

According to the diagnostic criteria and classification for AP, the incidence of PEP was higher than that according to the Cotton criteria and the severity of PEP tended to be severe.

Combined use of indomethacin and hydration is the best conservative approach for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention: A network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a life-threatening complication. Given the lack of a causative treatment for pancreatitis, it is of vital importance to minimize this risk of PEP. Multi-target preventive therapy may be the best choice for PEP prevention as disease development is multifactorial.

AIM

We aimed to assess the efficacy of a combination of indomethacin and hydration - type and amount - for PEP prevention via a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Through a systematic search in three databases, we searched all randomized controlled trials involving hydration and indomethacin and ranked the PEP preventive efficacy with a Bayesian network meta-analysis using the PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-NMA) guideline. The RoB2 tool was used for risk of bias assessment, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for ranking and PROSPERO for the study protocol [reg. no. CRD42018112698]. We used risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data with 95% credible intervals (95% CrI).

RESULTS

The quantitative analysis included 7559 patients from 24 randomized controlled trials. Based on the SUCRA values, a combination of lactated Ringer's and indomethacin is more effective than single therapy with a 94% certainty. The percent relative risk ratios estimate preventive efficacy 70-99% higher for combinations than single therapies. Aggressive hydration with indomethacin (SUCRA 100%) is also significantly more effective than all other interventions (percent relative effect 94.3-98.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

A one-hit-on-each-target therapeutic approach is recommended in PEP prevention with an easily accessible combination of indomethacin and aggressive hydration for all average and high-risk patients without contraindication.

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

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

Regular Statin Use and Incidence of Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

GOALS AND BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is widely utilized to diagnose and treat various pancreaticobiliary diseases, but postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) can be a fatal adverse event. Evidence suggests that statins may exhibit suppressive effects on inflammation in the pancreas. We carried out an observational cohort study to examine the protective effect of statins on PEP.

STUDY

We retrospectively identified consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at a tertiary care center in Japan between January 2010 and January 2019. The incidences of PEP were compared between regular and nonregular statin users. Using the multivariable logistic regression model, we examined the association of regular statin use with the incidence of PEP controlling for potential risk factors for PEP.

RESULTS

We included 2664 patients (328 regular statin users and 2336 nonregular users). The incidence of PEP did not differ by statin use status (P=0.52): 8.8% in regular statin users and 7.9% in nonregular users. The multivariable-adjusted odds ratio for PEP comparing regular statin use with nonregular use was 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.72; P=0.76). When we examined specific statin types (hydrophilic and lipophilic statins), we consistently observed the null association: 6.8% of 132 hydrophilic statin users and 10% of 196 lipophilic statin users (P=0.74 and 0.27, respectively, compared with nonregular users).

CONCLUSIONS

Regular statin use was not shown to be protective against PEP. A further investigation is warranted before this medication is tested in prospective randomized trials.

Naproxen, isosorbide dinitrate and co-administration cannot prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Randomized controlled trial

Backgrounds/Aims

Acute pancreatitis is the most widespread complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Here, we investigated the efficacy of rectal suppository naproxen, sublingual isosorbide dinitrate and their co-administration in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Methods

This double-blind randomized clinical trial carried out from June 2015 to February 2016 at the Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center in Rasht, Iran. A total of 585 patients were selected from candidates for diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP by using the simple sampling method. Patients divided into three groups. Group A received 500 mg naproxen, group B took 5 mg isosorbide dinitrate, and group C was co-administrated both agents before ERCP. The primary outcome measure was the development of pancreatitis onset of pain in the upper abdomen and increase of serum amylase activity more than 3 times over the upper normal limit (60-100 IU/L) within first the 24 h post-ERCP.

Results

Totally, 80 patients developed PEP included 29 (4.9%), 24 (4.1%), and 27 (4.6%) patients in groups A, B, and C, respectively (p=0.845). Longer ERCP time (p=0.041), using diazepam (p=0.033), a higher number of pancreatic ducts cannulation (p<0.001), pancreatic duct injection (p=0.013), and using pancreatic stent (p=0.004) were the predisposing factors for PEP.

Conclusions

Our findings indicated that prophylactic naproxen suppository or isosorbide dinitrate sublingually or co-administration had no significant difference in the prevention and severity of PEP, however, enhancing the endoscopist’s skills can be effective. Departments and educational hospitals should develop their assessment and quality assurance measures for the training of fellows’ not only technical training but also an understanding of the diagnostic and therapeutic roles of the procedure.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Rectal indometacin dose escalation for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in high-risk patients: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although rectal indometacin 100 mg is effective in reducing the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown, and pancreatitis incidence remains high. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of two dose regimens of rectal indometacin on the frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind, comparative effectiveness trial, we enrolled patients from six tertiary medical centres in the USA. Eligible patients were those at high risk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositories and a placebo suppository (standard-dose group) or three 50 mg indometacin suppositories (high-dose group). 4 h after the procedure, patients assigned to the high-dose group received an additional 50 mg indometacin suppository, whereas patients in the standard-dose group received an additional placebo suppository. The randomisation schedule, stratified according to study centre and with no other restrictions, was computer generated by an investigator who was uninvolved in the clinical care of any participants, distributed to the sites, and kept by personnel not directly involved with the study. These same personnel were responsible for packaging the drug and placebo in opaque envelopes. Patients, study personnel, and treating physicians were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome of the study was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01912716, and enrolment is complete.

FINDINGS

Between July 9, 2013, and March 22, 2018, 1037 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either standard-dose (n=515) or high-dose indometacin (n=522). Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and 65 (12%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (risk ratio [RR] 1·19, 95% CI 0·87-1·61; p=0·32). We observed 19 adverse events that were potentially attributable to study drug. Clinically significant bleeding occurred in 14 (1%) of 1037 patients-six (1%) of 515 patients in the standard-dose indometacin group and eight (2%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group (p=0·79). Three (1%) of 522 patients in the high-dose indometacin group developed acute kidney injury versus none in the standard-dose group (p=0·25). A non-ST elevation myocardial infarction occurred in the standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP. A transient ischaemic attack occurred in the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP. All 19 adverse events, in addition to the 141 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission to hospital. We observed no allergic reactions or deaths at 30 day follow-up.

INTERPRETATION

Dose escalation to rectal indometacin 200 mg did not confer any advantage compared with the standard 100 mg regimen, with pancreatitis incidence remaining high in high-risk patients. Current practice should continue unchanged. Further research should consider the pharmacokinetics of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to determine the optimal timing of their administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP.

FUNDING

American College of Gastroenterology.

A randomized trial comparing the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose administration of rectal indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The before-procedure or after-procedure rectal indomethacin administration was shown to be useful in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We designed this prospective randomized study to compare the efficacy of single-dose and double-dose rectal indomethacin administration in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We enrolled patients who underwent the ERCP in Taipei Mackay Memorial Hospital from 2016 June to 2017 November. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: single and double-dose groups. The primary endpoint was the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

A total 162 patients participated in this study, and there were 87 patients randomly assigned to the single-dose group, and 75 patients were assigned to the double-dose group. In the high-risk patients, the incidence of PEP was lower in double-dose patients (4.8%) than the single-dose patients (9.5%), but there was no significant difference (P =.24). Difficult cannulation was the only 1 risk factor for PEP after rectal indomethacin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-dose rectal indomethacin administration immediately after ERCP in general population is good enough to prevent PEP, but difficult cannulation could induce the PEP frequency up to 15.4% even under rectal indomethacin use.

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.

What is impact of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Recently, although studies have investigated the role of NSAIDs in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), selection of the ideal drug, the time and route of its administration for the appropriate population remain controversial.

Methods

A systematic search was done in sources including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov from from August 1, 1990 to August 1, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing the prophylactic use of NSAIDs versus a placebo were included. Statistical analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software to assess the outcomes.

Results

A total of 21 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Our study showed that NSAIDs significantly reduced the incidence of PEP (RR, 0.61, 95%CI,0.52–0.72; p < 0.00001). The analysis showed that indomethacin administration post-ERCP (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31–0.70; p = 0.0002) appeared to be more effective in preventing PEP than indomethacin administration pre-ERCP (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45–0.79; P = 0.0003), but there was no significant difference between the high-risk and average-risk population(p = 0.13). In the diclofenac group, it was noted that administration of diclofenac pre-ERCP (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16–0.63; p = 0.001) was more effective than that in post-ERCP (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.27–1.599; p = 0.35). The relative risk of PEP was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.27–1.50; p = 0.30) in high-risk patients and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.17–0.98; p = 0.02) in average-risk patients. With regard to the route of administration, PEP decreased significantly only in patients receiving the drug rectally (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44–0.63; p < 0.00001), but not for those who received intramuscularly (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.47–1.17; p = 0.20), intravenously (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.51–1.83; p = 0.93), and orally (RR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55–0.1.43; p = 0.62).

Conclusions

Rectal administration of NSAIDs (both indomethacin and diclofenac) was effective in preventing PEP in unselected patients. A single dose of indomethacin after ERCP might be effective in preventing PEP in both high-risk and average-risk patients. However, diclofenac administered rectally before ERCP might be protective against PEP in high-risk patients compared to a placebo. However, more high quality head-to-head RCTs are required.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in significant morbidity, occasional mortality, and increased health-care expenditure. Accordingly, the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical and research priority. Strategies to reduce the incidence of PEP include thoughtful patient selection, appropriate risk-stratification, sound procedural technique, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pharmacoprevention. Despite advances in all these areas, however, the incidence of PEP remains as high as 15% in high-risk cases. Thus, additional research towards the goal of eliminating PEP is necessary. Herein is an evidence-based review of strategies to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP, focusing on recent important developments in the field.