Real-World Practice Patterns in the Era of Rectal Indomethacin for Prophylaxis Against Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in a High-Risk Cohort

Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for the Prevention of Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remains the most frequent and severe complication following ERCP, elevating both patient suffering and healthcare costs, and posing challenges to the advancement of ERCP techniques. Empirical evidence supports the prophylactic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the prevention of PEP, especially in high-risk populations, as endorsed by both the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). However, the prophylactic efficacy of NSAIDs in average-risk individuals, alongside the ideal drug selection, dosing, and timing of NSAID administration, remains to be elucidated. Furthermore, the synergistic preventive potential of NSAIDs when integrated with other interventions, such as hydration, pancreatic stenting, somatostatin administration, sublingual nitrate application, and epinephrine, warrants further clarification. In this paper, we conduct an exhaustive review of the prophylactic effect and clinical administration of NSAIDs for PEP. We comprehensively synthesize findings from clinical trials investigating NSAIDs, both in monotherapy and combination regimens, for PEP prevention. Additionally, we scrutinize the current landscape of NSAID usage in clinical practice and evaluate their cost-effectiveness. Future research should concentrate on refining NSAID prophylaxis strategies for PEP in patients at different risk levels, while also enhancing adherence to clinical guidelines and alleviating the issue of NSAID cost inflation.

Indomethacin Does Not Reduce Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Pancreatic Stenting

BACKGROUND

Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its added benefits in patients already receiving prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of indomethacin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatic stenting.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent the rescue cannulation technique for challenging bile duct cannulation (selected high-risk patients). Patients were split into two groups based on the prophylaxis method for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP): one receiving a combination of indomethacin and pancreatic stenting, while the other received pancreatic stenting alone. Comparative analyses were carried out on PEP, hyperamylasemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients.

RESULTS

Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 607 patients with native papillae were enrolled, with 140 grouped into the indomethacin plus stent group and 467 into the stent alone group. The overall PEP rate was 4.4% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.407), mild PEP (P = 0.340), moderate to severe PEP (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia (P = 0.543), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.392), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.521). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis also validated these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in high-risk patients who routinely received prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Therefore, the additional administration of rectal indomethacin to further mitigate PEP appears to be not necessary.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention.

METHODS

In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups.

INTERPRETATION

For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health.

Frequent guidewire passage into the pancreatic duct is an independent risk factor for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among high-risk individuals: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial data

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the patient and procedural risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among patients receiving rectal indomethacin.

METHODS

Data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of high-risk patients undergoing ERCP who received rectal indomethacin with or without topical epinephrine was evaluated. PEP was defined based on the consensus criteria. Pancreatic stenting was excluded to avoid confounding results with the role of epinephrine spray. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient and procedural risk factors for PEP.

RESULTS

Among 960 patients enrolled in the RCT, the PEP incidence was 6.4%. An increased risk of PEP was seen with age <50 years and female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-4.26), malignant biliary stricture(s) (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.52-8.10), >2 guidewire passes into the pancreatic duct (PD) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.43-5.64), and pancreatic brush cytology (OR 6.37, 95% CI 1.10-36.90), whereas a decreased risk of PEP was seen with contrast- over guidewire-assisted cannulation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99) and the use of lactated Ringer's (LR) over other fluid types (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.98). There was a significant trend between the number of guidewire passes into the PD and PEP risk (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

More than two guidewire passes into the PD and pancreatic brush cytology increased while the use of LR decreased the risk of PEP among high-risk patients receiving rectal indomethacin. Pancreatic stent placement and/or LR should be considered in patients with >2 guidewire passes into the PD.

Current state of biliary cannulation techniques during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): International survey study

Background and study aims Endoscopist techniques affect biliary cannulation success and the risk of adverse events during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This survey study aims to understand the current practice of biliary cannulation techniques among endoscopists. Methods Practicing endoscopists were sent an anonymous 28-question electronic survey on biliary cannulation techniques and intraprocedural pancreatitis prophylactic strategies. Results The survey was completed by 692 endoscopists (6.2% females). A wire-guided cannulation technique (WGT) was the preferred initial biliary cannulation approach (95%). The preferred secondary approaches were a double-wire (DWT) (65.8%), precut needle-knife technique (NKT) (25.7%), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (5.9%) or other (2.6%). Overall, 18.1% of respondents were not comfortable with NKTs. In the setting of pancreatic duct (PD) access, 81.9% and 97% reported a threshold of three or more wire passes or contrast injections into the PD, respectively, before changing strategy, 34% reported placement of a prophylactic PD stent <50% of the time and 12.1% reported removal of the PD stent at the end of the procedure. Advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) training and high volume (>200 ERCPs per year) were associated with comfort with precut NKTs and likelihood of prophylactic PD stent ( P <0.001 for both). Conclusions A WGT technique followed by the DWT and NKT were the preferred biliary cannulation techniques; however, almost one-fifth of respondents were not comfortable with the NKT. There was considerable variability in secondary cannulation approaches, time spent attempting biliary cannulation and prophylactic PD stent placement, factors known to be associated with cannulation success and adverse outcomes.

Universal prophylactic rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with a policy of selective pancreatic duct stenting significantly reduce post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Although rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to be effective for the prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, the benefit in average-risk patients is unclear. We aimed at assessing the benefit of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs in unselected consecutive patients to prevent PEP.

METHODS

All patients undergoing index ERCP procedures from January 2018 until March 2020 were included. All patients received prophylactic rectal diclofenac. A prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent was placed if there was repeated PD cannulation, at the discretion of the endoscopist. The frequency of PEP was compared with historical controls.

RESULTS

Of 769 patients who underwent ERCP, 34 (4.4%) developed PEP (mild in 29 [85.3%], moderate in four [11.8%] and severe in one [2.9%]). Female gender, precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent PD cannulation and procedural time of > 30 minutes predicted PEP in univariate analysis. Inadvertent PD cannulation (OR 4.6, 95% CI: 1.8-11.7; p < 0.001) and procedural time of > 30 minutes (OR 8.5, 95% CI: 3.7-10.1; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors on multivariate analysis. When compared with historical controls, the odds of PEP with prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs and selective PD stenting was 0.54 (CI: 0.31-0.93, p = 0.027). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 22 to prevent one PEP with prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

CONCLUSION

Routine use of prophylactic rectal NSAIDs effectively prevents the occurrence of PEP in unselected consecutive patients in a real-world scenario.

Incidence and Predictors of Incidental Biochemical and Radiologic Pancreatic Alterations Following Uncomplicated ERCP

Background: Despite post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) being a major focus of outcomes research in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), little is known regarding the frequency with which asymptomatic biochemical and/or radiologic pancreatic alterations occur in patients following ERCP. Methods: Adult inpatients undergoing ERCP were identified from a prospective ERCP registry. Patients with any abdominal pain, confirmed PEP, or pancreatitis or abnormal pancreatic enzymes preceding ERCP were excluded. Primary outcomes were asymptomatic lipase elevation on bloodwork within 24 h of ERCP or asymptomatic cross-sectional imaging findings consistent with acute pancreatitis in the absence of clinical PEP within 14 days. Multinomial logistic regression and multiple logistic regression were used to examine associations between exposures and lipase levels and between PEP or imaging findings, respectively. Results: In total, 646 and 187 patients were analyzed as part of the biochemical and radiologic cohorts, respectively. A total of 26.0% of patients had asymptomatic elevations in lipase above the upper limit of normal (ULN) within 24 h, and 9.4% had elevations >3× ULN. A total of 20.9% of patients had incidental findings of enlargement, inflammation/edema/fat stranding, peri-pancreatic fluid collections, and/or necrosis on cross-sectional imaging within 14 days. Pancreatic contrast injection was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic lipasemia (adjusted odds ratio, AOR, 7.22; 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.13 to 46.02), as was the use of the double-wire technique (AOR 15.74; 95% 1.15 to 214.74) and placement of a common bile duct stent (AOR 4.19; 95% CI 1.37 to 12.77). Over 10 cannulation attempts were associated with the presence of one or more radiologic finding(s) (AOR 33.95; 95% CI 1.64, to 704.13). Conclusions: Significant rates of incidental biochemical and/or radiologic pancreatic abnormalities are present following ERCP. Clinicians should be aware of our findings to minimize misclassification and better direct healthcare utilization.

MRI Evaluation of Indomethacin Suppositories in the Prevention of Complications of Pancreatitis and Hyperamylasemia after Choledocholithiasis ERCP Based on Image Denoising Algorithm

Objective

To explore the value of MRI evaluation of indomethacin suppositories in the prevention of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in patients with common bile duct calculi after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) based on image denoising algorithm.

Methods

A retrospective analysis in August 2020 to December 2021. Because of the common bile duct calculi hospitalized parallel ERCP operation, 89 cases of patients, according to the different postoperative treatments, were divided into group A (n = 44) and group B (n = 45), in which A set of separate application inhibits the pancreatic enzyme secretion after surgery drug treatment, and B group on the basis of group A linked with indole beauty Xinshuan treatment. The incidence of postoperative pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia was compared between the two groups. The levels of serum amylase were compared between the two groups. Patients in group B were diagnosed with pancreatitis by conventional MRI and MRI with denoising algorithm, respectively, and the imaging characteristics and diagnosis rate differences of the two methods were observed. ROC curve was drawn to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of MRI denoising algorithm for postoperative pancreatitis and serum amylase level detection for hyperamylasemia.

Results

The incidence of postoperative pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in group B was significantly lower than that in group A (P < 0.05). There were 6 cases of postoperative pancreatitis in group B, 2 cases (33.33%) were diagnosed by conventional MRI, and 5 cases (83.33%) were diagnosed by MRI based on denoising algorithm. Although there was no significant difference in diagnosis rate between the two methods, the number of cases of pancreatitis diagnosed by MRI based on denoising algorithm was slightly higher than that by conventional MRI. Compared with conventional MRI images, MRI images with denoising algorithm showed that the number of cases with pancreatic swelling, the number of cases with pancreatic duct/bile duct dilation, and the number of cases with abdominal effusion were all high (all P < 0.05). ROC results showed that the area under the curve of MRI with denoising algorithm for the diagnosis of postoperative pancreatitis was 0.855, and the sensitivity was 89.40%. The specificity was 83.20%, and the area under the curve of serum amylase for postoperative hyperamylasemia was 0.893, the sensitivity was 89.80%, and the specificity was 85.20%, all of which had high diagnostic efficacy.

Conclusion

MRI results of denoising algorithm suggest that indomethacin suppositories can effectively reduce the incidence of postoperative pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia after ERCP, which is worthy of clinical application.

The Next EPISOD: Trends in Utilization of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy for Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction from 2010-2019

BACKGROUND & AIMS

For years, the endoscopic management of the disorder formerly known as Type III Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (SOD) had been controversial. In 2013, the results of the Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (EPISOD) trial demonstrated that there was no benefit associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy for patients with Type III SOD. We aimed to assess the utilization of endoscopic sphincterotomy for patients with SOD in a large population database from 2010-2019.

METHODS

We searched a large electronic health record (EHR)-based dataset incorporating over 300 individual hospitals in the United States (Explorys, IBM Watson health, Armonk, NY). Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) we identified patients with a first-ever diagnosis of "disorder of Sphincter of Oddi" annually from 2010-2019. Subclassification of SOD types was not feasible using SNOMED-CT codes. Stratified by year, we identified the proportion of patients with newly-diagnosed SOD undergoing endoscopic sphincterotomy and those receiving newly-prescribed medical therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 39,950,800 individual patients were active in the database with 7,750 index diagnoses of SOD during the study period. The incidence rates of SOD increased from 2.4 to 12.8 per 100,000 persons from 2010-2019 (P < .001). In parallel, there were reductions in the rates of biliary (34.3% to 24.5%) and pancreatic sphincterotomy (25% to 16.4%), respectively (P < .001). Sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) was infrequently utilized, <20 times in any given year, throughout the study duration. There were no significant increases in new prescriptions for TCAs, nifedipine, or vasodilatory nitrates.

CONCLUSIONS

Among a wide range of practice settings which do not utilize routine SOM, a sudden and sustained decrease in rates of endoscopic sphincterotomy for newly-diagnosed SOD was observed beginning in 2013. These findings highlight the critical importance of high-quality, multi-center, randomized controlled trials in endoscopy to drive evidence-based changes in real-world clinical practice.

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Prophylaxis in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common adverse event after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and is responsible for substantial morbidity and health care expenditures of at least $200 million. Therapies for PEP prevention include pancreatic stent placement (PSP), rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, and aggressive lactated Ringer's hydration. Our objective was to determine which PEP prophylactic strategies are cost effective.

METHODS

We developed 2 separate decision trees to evaluate PEP prophylactic strategies. The first, in high-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, PSP, PSP with indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's, and no prophylaxis. The second, in average-risk patients, compared rectal indomethacin, sublingual nitrates, aggressive hydration, and no prophylaxis. We used incidence rates, transition probabilities, and costs from publications and public data sources. Outcome measures were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Compared with no prophylaxis, all strategies were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000 in preventing PEP in high-risk patients. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy in high-risk patients ($31,589/QALYs). In average-risk patients, indomethacin and sublingual nitrates were cost effective at a WTP of $100,000/QALYs compared with no prophylaxis. When directly compared with each other, rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy ($53,016/QALYs).

CONCLUSIONS

Rectal indomethacin was the cost-effective strategy for preventing PEP in both average-risk and high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. All strategies were cost effective when compared with no prophylaxis in high-risk patients, whereas all strategies except for aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's were cost effective in average-risk patients. Further studies are needed to improve the utilization of PEP prevention strategies.

Rectal Indomethacin Does Not Mitigate the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome in Acute Pancreatitis: A Randomized Trial

INTRODUCTION

Experimental data suggest that nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may prevent disease severity and mortality in acute pancreatitis (AP). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of rectal indomethacin vs placebo in reducing the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score in a high-risk AP population for clinical progression.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center, quadruple-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Eligible criteria were subjects with AP and SIRS within 72 hours of presentation and those without organ failure. Subjects were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to indomethacin or placebo using simple randomization. Both interventions were administered rectally every 8 hours for 6 doses and compared using both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 42 subjects (mean age 52 years, 55% men) were randomized to indomethacin (n = 18) or placebo (n = 24). There was no significant difference between the indomethacin and placebo groups in the change of SIRS score, proportion of subjects with SIRS, and distribution of SIRS scores at 24, 48, and 72 hours from randomization. There were no significant differences in the change of C-reactive protein levels at 48 hours or clinical outcomes between both treatment groups. Indomethacin was as safe as placebo, with 2 adverse events occurring in the placebo and none in the indomethacin arm.

DISCUSSION

Rectal indomethacin can be safely administered over 48 hours; however, it is not superior to placebo in reducing the SIRS or clinical progression in a high-risk population with AP (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02692391).

Underutilization of prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent for prevention of post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Background and study aims  Incidence of Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges from 1 % to 10 % in unselected patients and as high as 25 % to 30 % in high-risk patients. Rectal indomethacin administered before or immediately after an ERCP and prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement (PPS) are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PEP. We sought to investigate the utilization rate for prophylactic rectal indomethacin and PPS in average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP between 2014 and 2019. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective analysis in the IBM Explorys database, a pooled, national de-identified clinical database of over 72 million unique patients from 26 health care networks and 300 hospitals across the United States from 2014 to 2019. Average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP were identified using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) diagnosis codes. PEP was defined by the presence of SNOMED CT diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and an inpatient admission within 5 days of an ERCP procedure. Results  Out of 31,050 adults who had undergone ERCP from 2014 to 2019, only 10,500 individuals (33.8 %) had a PEP prophylaxis. Rectal indomethacin and PPS accounted for 82.4 % and 12.9 % respectively. Individuals with three risk factors had the highest PEP rates followed by individuals with two risk factors. Conclusions  Only one-third of all patients undergoing ERCP received prophylaxis in the form of rectal indothemacin and/or PPS in this large population-based data. Increased implementation of prophylactic use is needed in patients undergoing ERCP as supported by current guidelines.

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.

METHODS

FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155.

FINDINGS

Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53-1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62-1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07-1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50-1·83; p=1·00).

INTERPRETATION

Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified.

FUNDING

Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center.

Increased Use of Prophylactic Measures in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic duct stenting, and intensive intravenous hydration have been proven to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Trial participation and guideline changes demanded an assessment of the clinical practice of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis.

AIMS

The surveys aim to identify points of improvement to inform and educate ERCPists about current evidence-based practice.

METHODS

Two anonymous surveys were conducted among Dutch gastroenterologists in 2013 (n = 408) and 2020 (n = 575) for longitudinal views and attitudes pertaining to post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and recognition of post-ERCP pancreatitis risk factors.

RESULTS

In 2013 and 2020, respectively, 121 and 109 ERCPists responded. In the 2013 survey, 98% of them utilized NSAID prophylaxis and 62% pancreatic duct stent prophylaxis in specific cases. In the 2020 survey, the use of NSAIDs (100%), pancreatic duct stents (78%), and intensive intravenous hydration (33%) increased among ERCPists. NSAID prophylaxis was the preferred prophylactic measure for all risk factors in the 2020 survey, except for ampullectomy, pancreatic duct contrast injection, and pancreatic duct cannulation, for which NSAID prophylaxis and pancreatic duct stent combined was equally favored or preferred.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NSAIDs are the most applied post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis in the Netherlands, followed by pancreatic duct stents and intensive intravenous hydration. Additionally, there is reason to believe that recent guideline updates and active research participation have led to increased prophylaxis implementation.

Morphology of the major papilla predicts ERCP procedural outcomes and adverse events

BACKGROUND

The morphology of the major papilla affects the difficulty of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but no associations with adverse events have previously been established. We aimed to assess whether papillary morphology predicts ERCP adverse events.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospective registry of patients undergoing ERCP for biliary indications. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), with secondary outcomes including other adverse events and procedural outcomes such as inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, cannulation time, and attempts. Papillae were classified as normal (Type I), small or flat (Type II), bulging (Type IIIa), pendulous (Type IIIb), creased (Type IV), or peri-diverticular (Type D). Outcomes were ascertained prospectively at 30 days from index procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 637 patients with native papillae were included. Compared to Type I papillae, Type II and Type IIIb papillae were associated with PEP, with adjusted odds ratios (AOR) of 7.28 (95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.84-28.74) and 4.25 (95% CI 1.26-14.32), respectively. Type II and IIIb papillae were associated with significantly longer cannulation times by 5.37 (95% CI 2.39-8.35) and 4.01 (95% CI 1.72-6.30) minutes, respectively. Type IIIb papillae were associated with lower deep cannulation success (AOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.48).

CONCLUSION

Papillary morphology is an important factor influencing both ERCP success and outcomes. Understanding this is key for managing intraprocedural approaches and minimizing adverse events.

PROSPECTIVE REGISTRY REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04259580.

Pharmacotherapy for Obesity-Trends Using a Population Level National Database

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing trend of obesity, the utilization of anti-obesity therapeutic interventions is not robust in the USA. We aimed to analyze the trends of anti-obesity pharmacotherapy using a population level database.

METHODS

We used an electronic health record-derived database (Explorys, IBM Watson Health) to identify adults with obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²), 2010-2019. Annual rates of anti-obesity pharmacotherapy were analyzed. To assess post-bariatric utilization of these medications, the trend of adults with morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m ²) who were newly started on anti-obesity medications after sleeve gastrectomy was also analyzed.

RESULTS

Among 11,195,020 adults with obesity, 274,160 (2.4%) were prescribed anti-obesity medications during the study period with an increase from 1.1% in 2010 to 2.9% in 2019 (p < 0.0001). A total of 900 (3.5%) of those with morbid obesity were started on weight loss medications within 5 years of sleeve gastrectomy. Women [odds ratio (OR) 3.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.51-3.58], individuals under 50 years (OR 1.59, CI 1.57-1.60), non-Hispanics (OR 1.12, 1.10-1.14, p < 0.0001), African Americans (OR 1.18, CI 1.16-1.19), Medicaid (OR 1.70, CI 1.67-1.73), and commercial insurance holders (OR 2.46, 2.43-2.49) were more likely to receive anti-obesity pharmacotherapy, p < 0.001 for all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

There has been a modest increase in the prevalence of anti-obesity medications in the last 10 years, but they remain significantly underutilized. Further studies addressing the barriers to anti-obesity pharmacotherapy might help in increasing the utilization of these medications among adults with obesity.