A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: current strategies and novel perspectives

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an advanced endoscopic procedure that might lead to severe adverse events. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common post-procedural complication, which is related to significant mortality and increasing healthcare costs. Up to now, the prevalent approach to prevent PEP consisted of employing pharmacological and technical expedients that have been shown to improve post-ERCP outcomes, such as the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, aggressive intravenous hydration, and the placement of a pancreatic stent. However, it has been reported that PEP originates from a more complex interaction of procedural and patient-related factors. Appropriate ERCP training has a pivotal role in PEP prevention strategy, and it is not a chance that a low PEP rate is universally considered one of the most relevant indicators of proficiency in ERCP. Scant data on the acquisition of skills during the ERCP training are currently available, although some efforts have been recently done to shorten the learning curve by way of simulation-based training and demonstrate competency by meeting technical requirements as well as adopting skill evaluation scales. Besides, the identification of adequate indications for ERCP and accurate pre-procedural risk stratification of patients might help to reduce PEP occurrence regardless of the endoscopist's technical abilities, and generally preserve safety in ERCP. This review aims at delineating current preventive strategies and highlighting novel perspectives for a safer ERCP focusing on the prevention of PEP.

An Insight on Pharmacological and Mechanical Preventive Measures of Post-ERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP)—A Review

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). With the progress of research in many drugs and technologies, promising efficacy has been achieved in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Recently, combined prevention has received more attention in order to further reduce the incidence of PEP. However, there is no review about the combined prevention of PEP. This review summarizes the medication and ERCP techniques that are used to prevent PEP and emphasizes that appropriate combination prevention approaches should be based on risk stratification.

Best practices for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is of one the most common gastroenterology-related indications for hospital admissions worldwide. With the widespread reliance on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of pancreaticobiliary conditions, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has come to represent an important etiology of acute pancreatitis. Despite many studies aiming to better understand the pathogenesis and prevention of this iatrogenic disorder, findings have been heterogeneous, and considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Herein, we review the literature regarding PEP with the goal to raise awareness of this entity, discuss recent data, and present evidence-based best practices. We believe this manuscript will be useful for gastrointestinal endoscopists as well as other specialists involved in the management of patients with PEP.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review

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

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.

Combination of Diclofenac and Sublingual Nitrates Is Superior to Diclofenac Alone in Preventing Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a major adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreases the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Little is known about the combined effects of sublingual nitrate and NSAIDs. We performed a randomized trial to assess whether the combination of NSAIDs and sublingual nitrate is more effective than NSAIDs alone in preventing PEP.

METHODS

In a prospective superiority trial, eligible patients underwent ERCP at 12 endoscopic units in Japan, from March 2015 through May 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given diclofenac suppositories (50 mg) within 15 minutes after the endoscopic procedure alone (diclofenac-alone group, n = 442) or in combination with sublingual isosorbide dinitrate (5 mg) 5 minutes before the endoscopic procedure (combination group, n = 444). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of PEP.

RESULTS

PEP developed in 25 patients in the combination group (5.6%), and in 42 patients in the diclofenac-alone group (9.5%) (relative risk 0.59; 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.95; P = .03). Moderate to severe pancreatitis developed in 4 patients (0.9%) in the combination group, and 10 patients (2.3%) in the diclofenac-alone group (relative risk 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.26; P = .12). There was no serious adverse event related to the additional administration of sublingual nitrate.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that prophylaxis with rectal diclofenac and sublingual nitrate significantly reduces the overall incidence of PEP compared with diclofenac suppository alone. ClinicalTrials.gov, no: UMIN 000016274.

Sublingual glyceryl trinitrate during colonoscopy and terminal ileal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

Background and aims Sublingual glyceryl trinitrate has been used as an aid to cannulate the Sphincter of Oddi during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Its role in terminal ileal intubation during colonoscopy is unknown. This study examines the role of sublingual glyceryl trinitrate in terminal ileal intubation during colonoscopy. Methods A triple-blind randomized controlled trial comparing sublingual glyceryl trinitrate (800 µg) vs. placebo (saline) in relation to terminal ileal intubation during colonoscopy was performed. Following caecal intubation, participants received sublingual glyceryl trinitrate/placebo followed by a 2-min observation period before intubation was attempted. Data on time to intubate the terminal ileum and intubation rate were collected. Results A total of 110 patients (age: 58 years (18-75)) were recruited and randomised as per protocol: 54 received sublingual glyceryl trinitrate. Terminal ileal intubation was successful in all patients receiving sublingual glyceryl trinitrate and in 53 (94.6%) of those receiving saline ( p = 0.243: Fischer's exact). The median time taken for ileal intubation after application of spray was 72.5 (7-900) s in the glyceryl trinitrate group compared with 125 (5-900) s in the placebo group ( p = 0.150: Mann-Whitney). There were no major adverse events reported in either group. Conclusions Terminal ileal intubation rates and timing were very good in both groups. Routine sublingual glyceryl trinitrate was not proven to be beneficial in improving terminal ileal intubation or intubation success rates in the hands of experienced colonoscopists. However, trends in this small study might suggest that glyceryl trinitrate could be useful in the hands of less experienced colonoscopists or in difficult terminal ileal intubation cases.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost.

RESULTS

After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: What can be done?

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis varies substantially and is reported around 1%-10%, although there are some reports with an incidence of around 30%. Usually, PEP is a mild or moderate pancreatitis, but in some instances it can be severe and fatal. Generally, it is defined as the onset of new pancreatic-type abdominal pain severe enough to require hospital admission or prolonged hospital stay with levels of serum amylase two to three times greater than normal, occurring 24 h after ERCP. Several methods have been adopted for preventing pancreatitis, such as pharmacological or endoscopic approaches. Regarding medical prevention, only non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, namely diclofenac sodium and indomethacin, are recommended, but there are some other drugs which have some potential benefits in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopic preventive measures include cannulation (wire guided) and pancreatic stenting, while the adoption of the early pre-cut technique is still arguable. This review will attempt to present and discuss different ways of preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis remains the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is reported to occur in 2–10% of unselected patient samples and up to 40% of high-risk patients. The purpose of this article is to review the evidence behind the known risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as the technical and medical approaches developed to prevent it. There have been many advances in identifying the causes of this condition. Based on this knowledge, a variety of preventive strategies have been developed and studied. The approach to prevention begins with careful patient selection and performing ERCP for specific indications, while considering alternative diagnostic modalities when appropriate. Patients should also be classified by high-risk factors such as young age, female sex, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, a history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and normal serum bilirubin, all of which have been identified in numerous research studies. The pathways of injury that are believed to cause post-ERCP pancreatitis eventually lead to the common endpoint of inflammation, and these individual steps can be targeted for preventive therapies through procedural techniques and medical management. This includes the use of a guide wire for cannulation, minimizing the number of cannulation attempts, avoiding contrast injections or trauma to the pancreatic duct, and placement of a temporary pancreatic duct stent in high-risk patients. Administration of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) in high-risk patients is the proven pharmacological measure for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The evidence for or against numerous other attempted therapies is still unclear, and ongoing investigation is required.

Association of greater intravenous volume infusion with shorter hospitalization for patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are no data specifically correlating early intravenous volume infusion (IVI) with the length of hospitalization for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted within 24 h after ERCP to our institute with PEP. IVI during the first 24 h after ERCP was assessed. Primary outcome was severity of PEP, defined by length of hospitalization according to consensus guidelines: mild ≤ 3, moderate 4-10, and severe > 10 days.

RESULTS

Of 72 eligible patients, 41 (56.9%) had mild and 31 (43.1%) moderate/severe PEP. Both groups had comparable demographics, indications, and procedural factors except patients with moderate/severe PEP were older (median age 49 vs 36 years, P = 0.05) and more likely to be discharged and readmitted within the first 24 h (41.9% vs 14.6%, P < 0.01). Patients with mild PEP received significantly greater IVI during the first 24 h (2834 mL [2046, 3570] vs 2044 mL [1227, 2875], P < 0.02) and 50% more fluid post-ERCP (2270 mL [1435, 2961] vs 1515 [950-2350], P < 0.02) compared with those with at least moderate PEP.

CONCLUSION

In patients with PEP, greater IVI during the first 24 h after ERCP is associated with reduced length of hospitalization. Lower IVI was more commonly observed in individuals who were discharged and then readmitted during the first 24 h.

A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrates to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Acute pancreatitis is the most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Recent data suggest that indomethacin can reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk individuals. However, whether the combination of indomethacin and sublingual nitrates is superior to indomethacin alone is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rectally administered indomethacin plus sublingual nitrate compared with indomethacin alone to prevent PEP.

METHODS

During a 17-month period, all eligible patients who underwent ERCP were enrolled in this study. We excluded patients who had undergone a prior endoscopic sphincterotomy. In a double-blind controlled randomized trial, patients received a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus 5 mg of sublingual nitrate (group A), or a suppository containing 100 mg of indomethacin, plus sublingual placebo (group B), before ERCP. Serum amylase levels and clinically pertinent evaluations were measured in all patients after ERCP.

RESULTS

Of the 300 enrolled patients, 150 received indomethacin plus nitrate. Thirty-three patients developed pancreatitis: 10 (6.7%) in group A and 23 (15.3%) in group B (P=0.016, risk ratio=0.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.18-0.86). More than 80% of the patients were at high risk of developing pancreatitis after ERCP. Absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and number needed to treat for the prevention of PEP were 8.6% (95% CI: 4.7-14.5), 56.2% (95% CI: 50.6-60.8), and 12 (95% CI: 7-22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of rectal indomethacin and sublingual nitrate given before ERCP was significantly more likely to reduce the incidence of PEP than indomethacin suppository alone. Multicenter trials to confirm these promising findings are needed.

Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of many pharmacological agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but it is unclear which agent(s) should be used in clinical practice. Network meta-analyses of RCTs are used to simultaneously compare several agents to determine their relative efficacy and identify priority agents for comparison in future RCTs.

AIM

To evaluate pharmacological agents for the prevention of PEP by conducting a network meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of agents for preventing PEP. RCTs were simultaneously analysed using random-effects network meta-analysis under the Bayesian framework to identify the best agents. The efficacy of agents was ordered according to the probability of being ranked as any of the top three best performing agents.

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 99 RCTs evaluating 16 agents in 25 313 patients. Topical epinephrine (adrenaline) was the most efficacious agent with 85.9% probability of ranking among the top three agents, followed by nafamostat (51.4%), antibiotics (44.5%) and NSAIDs (42.8%). However, in a sensitivity analysis including only rectal NSAIDs, NSAIDs moved from fourth rank to second (58.1%). Patients receiving topical epinephrine, compared with placebo, had a 75% reduced risk of PEP (OR 0.25, 95% probability interval 0.06-0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical epinephrine and rectal NSAIDs are the most efficacious agents for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, based on existing RCTs. Combinations of these agents, which act on different steps in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis, should be evaluated in future trials.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A variety of patient-related and procedure-related factors have been identified to risk-stratify patients. Several measures can be undertaken in order to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk groups. These measures include pancreatic duct stenting and rectal indomethacin, amongst others.

Preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.

Glyceryl trinitrate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and improve the rate of cannulation: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Several clinical trials used glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) to prevent the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results were still controversial.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of prophylactic GTN on the prevention of PEP, improve the rate of cannulation and the prevention of hyperamylasemia.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge databases, using keywords "post-ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and limited in randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 2649 patients were included. Eleven RCTs compared GTN with placebo for PEP prevention. Meta-analysis showed the overall incidence of PEP was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). Nevertheless, GTN administration did not decrease the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15). Subgroup analyses revealed that GTN administered by sublingual was more effective than transdermal and topical in reducing the incidence of PEP. Besides, the prophylactic effect of GTN was far more obvious in the group of high PEP incidence than in the group of low PEP incidence. Additionally, the incidence of hyperamylasemia was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90). No differences of the successful cannulation rate of bile ducts (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06) attributable to GTN were observed.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of GTN reduced the overall incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia. However, GTN was not helpful for the severity of PEP and the rate of cannulation.

Topical nitrate drip infusion using cystic duct tube for retained bile duct stone: A six patients case series

A retained bile duct stone after operation for cholelithiasis still occurs and causes symptoms such as biliary colic and obstructive jaundice. An endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), followed by stone extraction, are usually an effective treatment for this condition. However, these procedures are associated with severe complications including pancreatitis, bleeding, and duodenal perforation. Nitrates such as glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) and isosorbide dinitrate (ISDN) are known to relax the sphincter of Oddi. In 6 cases in which a retained stone was detected following cholecystectomy, topical nitrate drip infusion via cystic duct tube (C-tube) was carried out. Retained stones of 2-3 mm diameter and no dilated common bile duct in 3 patients were removed by drip infusion of 50 mg GTN or 10 mg ISDN, which was the regular dose of intravenous injection. Three other cases failed, and EST in 2 cases and endoscopic biliary balloon dilatation in 1 case were performed. One patient developed an adverse event of nausea. Severe complications were not observed. We consider the topical nitrate drip infusion via C-tube to be old but safe, easy, and inexpensive procedure for retained bile duct stone following cholecystectomy, inasmuch as removal rate was about 50% in our cases.

Indomethacin for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the effectiveness and safety of indomethacin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing indomethacin to placebo in the prevention of PEP from the PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, WANFANG and VIP databases. Data collection and literature evaluation were performed by two reviewers independently. Review Manager 5.0 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs involving 2718 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that indomethacin could reduce the incidence of PEP (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.30-0.52, P < 0.00001) and hyperamylasemia (OR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.37-0.67, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION: Indomethacin is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia.

Prevention and management of adverse events of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a therapeutic procedure with the potential for a variety of adverse events, including acute pancreatitis, perforation, bleeding, and cardiopulmonary complications, which are well-established risk factors. It has become standard that patients undergoing ERCP are carefully selected based on appropriate indications. Once an ERCP is undertaken, preprocedure and intraprocedure risks should be assessed and appropriate risk-reducing modalities, such as prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and rectal indomethacin, should be used if patient or procedural factors suggest an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Pilot study of aprepitant for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients: a phase II randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial

CONTEXT

Animal studies have demonstrated a role for substance P binding to neurokinin-1 receptor in the pathogenesis of acute pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the efficacy of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant) at preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial at a single academic medical center.

INTERVENTION

Patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis received either placebo or oral aprepitant administered 4 hours prior to ERCP, 80 mg 24 hours after the first dose, and then 80 mg 24 hours after the second dose.

PATIENTS

Thirty-four patients received aprepitant and 39 patients received placebo.

STATISTICS

Fisher's exact test was used to compare incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the two groups.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Incidence of acute pancreatitis was 7 in the aprepitant group and 7 in the placebo group. Hospitalization within 7 days post-procedure for abdominal pain that did not meet criteria for acute pancreatitis occurred in 6 and 9 patients in the aprepitant and placebo groups respectively (P=0.772).

CONCLUSIONS

Aprepitant did not lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in this preliminary human study. Larger studies potentially using the recently available intravenous formulation are necessary to conclusively clarify the efficacy of aprepitant in this setting.  

Post-ERCP pancreatitis: review of current preventive strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent literature with significant findings pertaining to the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite several promising reports of pharmacologic agents that have demonstrated the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secretin, there are currently no universally accepted agents for use in high-risk patients. The greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demonstrated through advancements in endoscopic techniques such as pancreatic duct stenting and dye-free guidewire cannulation.

SUMMARY

Pancreatitis requiring hospitalization is the most common complication of ERCP. Numerous pharmaceutical and procedure related interventions have been studied in attempts to prevent this complication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant. The most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and identification of risk factors prior to procedure.