Pancreatic Stenting Reduces Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Biliary Sepsis in High-Risk Patients: A Randomized, Controlled Study

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP.

Results

We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score.

Conclusions

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

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.

Gangrenous cholecystitis during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation operation: A case report and literature review

A 50-year-old male presented to the emergency department of a hospital with an acute myocardial infarction who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) followed by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The patient developed persistent jaundice during the course of the disease, which was later found to be gangrenous cholecystitis. We believe this case report will alert clinicians to the possibility of this complication and encourage early detection and intervention to improve the prognosis. Traditionally, the gallbladder has received secondary attention in patients receiving ECMO support, as vital organs tend to be prioritized. However, this case report illustrates the importance of preserving gallbladder function in patients receiving ECMO support.

Oral Endothelium Corneum Gigeriae Galli Therapy for Pancreatic Duct Stones: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic duct stones obstruct the pancreatic ducts and aggravate clinical symptoms of chronic pancreatitis. Only isolated case reports have shown that some drugs may be useful in dissolving pancreatic duct stones. Endothelium corneum gigeriae galli is a Chinese medicine widely used to cure multifarious lithiasis and maldigestion. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of endothelium corneum gigeriae galli oral therapy in the dissolution of stones and evaluate the improvement of clinical symptoms in patients with pancreatic duct stones.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with pancreatic duct stones were randomly divided into the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli and control groups. Endothelium corneum gigeriae galli was given orally to the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli group, and the placebo was given to the control group. Both groups were reviewed by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging; abdominal pain, exocrine and endocrine pancreatic function, and the nutritional status of patients were measured after the study.

RESULTS

The dissolution rate of the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P = .002). The abdominal pain of the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli group was relieved more significantly compared to that of the control group (P < .001). The exocrine and endocrine pancreatic function of the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli group improved more significantly than that of the control group (P < .001). The nutritional status of the endothelium corneum gigeriae galli group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P = .003).

CONCLUSION

Overall, oral endothelium corneum gigeriae galli treatment could dissolve pancreatic duct stones, relieve abdominal pain, improve exocrine and endocrine pancreatic functions, and control the deterioration of nutritional status. Endothelium corneum gigeriae galli treatment should be useful in pancreatic duct stones therapy.

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination modalities are superior to single modalities for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Different modalities have been employed to reduce the risk and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, there has been a paucity of studies comparing the efficacy of various prophylactic modalities for preventing PEP. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to determine the relative efficacy of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological modalities for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We performed a systematic and comprehensive search to identify and analyze all randomized controlled studies published until June 2020 that examined the effectiveness of pancreatic duct stents, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) based regimens, hydration, and their combinations for the prevention of PEP. The primary outcome was the frequency of PEP. An NMA was performed to combine direct and indirect comparisons of different prophylactic modalities.

RESULTS

The NMA included 46 studies evaluating 18 regimens in 16,241 patients. Based on integral analysis of predictive interval plots, and expected mean ranking and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, combination prophylaxis with indomethacin + lactated Ringer's solution (LR), followed by diclofenac + nitrate and indomethacin + normal saline, was found to be the most efficacious modality for the overall prevention of PEP. Indomethacin + LR, followed by diclofenac and pancreatic duct stents, was the most efficacious modality for high-risk groups.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs-based combination regimens with aggressive hydration or nitrate are superior to single modalities for the prevention of PEP.

Network meta-analysis of prophylactic pancreatic stents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of moderate-to-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

There is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values.

RESULTS

Seven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002-0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051-0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22-1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18-2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model and scoring system for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Background

A few models have been proposed for the prediction of the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), but many include factors that are not assessed routinely. Herein, we intend to develop and validate a predictive model for the occurrence of PEP.

Methods

Data of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) from January 01, 2016 to May 16, 2019 (training set and internal test set) and from May 17, 2019 to December 25, 2019 (external test set) were retrospectively collected. The performance of the model was validated in the two validation cohorts.

Results

A total of 342 patients were included for the external test set, and 47 (13.7%) developed PEP. The variables included in the scoring system were gastrectomy history, high direct bilirubin (DBIL), high albumin (ALB), villous type of papillary orifice, nodular type of papillary orifice, pancreatic guidewire passages, precut sphincterotomy, and high operator experience. A total score >5 indicated high risk. In the external test set, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.718, the sensitivity was 0.723, and the specificity was 0.676. In the external test set, the probability of PEP was 6.1%, 17.0%, and 37.5% in patients with low (<0), moderate (0-5), and high (>5) risk scores, respectively.

Conclusions

This study established a scoring system for predicting the risk of PEP using routinely measured clinical variables. Its application in routine work warrants further investigation.

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.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using pancreatic stents: A review of efficacy, diameter and length

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an important procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event that can sometimes be fatal. However, prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) insertion has been performed to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, the efficacy of prophylactic PS insertion has been shown to prevent PEP. In addition, several types of stents have been used to decrease PEP. In this review, we introduce the details of these RCTs and meta-analyses and reveal the specifications for stent placement, for example, the stent diameter and length and the pancreatic region into which the stent should be inserted.

Pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a major role in the investigation and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe adverse effect. Prior meta-analyses have shown that prophylactic PS was useful for preventing PEP. However, abstract reports and patients who underwent endoscopic ampullectomy were included in the previous analyses. In addition, two meta-analyses involved non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy of PS for preventing severe PEP was different in each meta-analysis. Therefore, we performed the current meta-analysis, which included only full-text articles, and added new findings.

AIM

To reveal the efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for related RCTs. Among the reports retrieved, 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All full-text articles were published between 1993 and 2016. A total of 1475 patients were enrolled in the included studies; of these patients, 734 had a PS inserted, and 741 did not have a PS inserted. PEP and severe PEP occurrence were evaluated in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in all studies and occurred in 39 (5.3%) patients who received a PS. On the other hand, PEP occurred in 141 (19%) patients who did not receive a PS. The occurrence of PEP was significantly lower in the patients who underwent PS placement than in the patients who did not receive a PS (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < 0.001). In addition, the occurrence of severe PEP was evaluated. Notably, the occurrence of severe PEP was not observed in the stent group; however, the occurrence of severe PEP was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients who did not have a PS inserted. Severe PEP occurred significantly less often in the stent group than in the no stent group (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, prophylactic PS placement is useful for preventing PEP and severe PEP.

Modified prophylactic 5-fr pancreatic duct stent enhances the rate of spontaneous dislodgement: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement effectively reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients, but the optimal stent remains unclear. We modified a 5-Fr, 3 cm pancreatic stent by removing the flange on the pancreatic side and compared the rate of spontaneous dislodgement and complications with the ordinary stent.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial at six tertiary endoscopic centers. Patients deemed high risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis randomly received modified or ordinary pancreatic stent. The primary outcome was spontaneous stent dislodgement at five days and 14 days. Secondary outcomes were the success rate of stent placement and complications.

Results

A total of 276 patients were randomly assigned to receive modified stents (mS group) and ordinary stents (oS group). The placement of a pancreatic stent was successful in all 276 patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, major diagnosis, or indications for stenting. At five days the spontaneous dislodgement rate was 47.72% for the mS group and 15.67% for the oS group (p<0.001); at 14 days the rates were 84.21% and 42.65%, respectively (p < 0.001). Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis occurred in 6.52% of all patients. There were no significant differences regarding the incidences of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, hemorrhage or fever.

Conclusions

The modified short 5-Fr stent has a higher spontaneous dislodgement rate than ordinary pancreatic stent, thus obviating the need for endoscopic removal. The modified pancreatic stent does not increase the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or other complications. The endoscopist can consider removing the flange on the pancreatic duct side for prophylactic pancreatic duct manipulation.

Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail

AIM

To investigate the location to which a pancreatic stent should be inserted to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

Over a ten-year period at our hospital, 296 patients underwent their first ERCP procedure and had a pancreatic stent inserted; this study included 147 patients who had ERCP performed primarily for biliary investigation and had a pancreatic stent inserted to prevent PEP. We divided these patients into two groups: 131 patients with a stent inserted into the pancreatic head (head group) and 16 patients with a stent inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail (body/tail group). Patient characteristics and ERCP factors were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Pancreatic amylase isoenzyme (p-AMY) levels in the head group were significantly higher than those in the body/tail group [138.5 (7.0-2086) vs 78.5 (5.0-1266.5), P = 0.03] [median (range)]. No cases of PEP were detected in the body/tail group [head group, 12 (9.2%)]. Of the risk factors for post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (≥ p-AMY median, 131 IU/L), procedure time ≥ 60 min [odds ratio (OR) 2.65, 95%CI: 1.17-6.02, P = 0.02) and stent insertion into the pancreatic head (OR 3.80, 95%CI: 1.12-12.9, P = 0.03) were identified as independent risk factors by multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stent insertion up to the pancreatic body or tail reduces the risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and may reduce the risk of PEP.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Risk factors and predictors of severity

AIM

To detect risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and investigate the predictors of its severity.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of all patients who underwent ERCP. Pre-ERCP data, intraoperative data, and post-ERCP data were collected.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 996 patients. Their mean age at presentation was 58.42 (± 14.72) years, and there were 454 male and 442 female patients. Overall, PEP occurred in 102 (10.2%) patients of the study population; eighty (78.4%) cases were of mild to moderate degree, while severe pancreatitis occurred in 22 (21.6%) patients. No hospital mortality was reported for any of PEP patients during the study duration. Age less than 35 years (P = 0.001, OR = 0.035), narrower common bile duct (CBD) diameter (P = 0.0001) and increased number of pancreatic cannulations (P = 0.0001) were independent risk factors for the occurrence of PEP.

CONCLUSION

PEP is the most frequent and devastating complication after ERCP. Age less than 35 years, narrower median CBD diameter and increased number of pancreatic cannulations are independent risk factors for the occurrence of PEP. Patients with these risk factors are candidates for prophylactic and preventive measures against PEP.