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

Risk factors for pancreatitis occurrence after gallstone treatment using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Background

Patients with gallstones are prone to pancreatitis after treatment using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to explore the risk factors for pancreatitis occurrence after gallstone treatment using ERCP.

Methods

A total of 193 patients treated from October 2017 to October 2020 were assigned into pancreatitis group (n=55) and non-pancreatitis group (n=138). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to analyse the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. The discrimination and accuracy of an established nomogram model were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic and calibration curves, respectively.

Results

The incidence rate of pancreatitis was 28.50% (55/193). Young age, long course of disease, gallbladder wall thickness >3 mm, sand-like stones, history of pancreatic disease, number of intubation ≥2 and absence of pancreatic duct stenting were risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (P<0.05). The established model had high discrimination and accuracy. The incidence rates of pancreatitis in patients with and without pancreatic duct stenting were 11.84% (9/76) and 39.31% (46/117), respectively. The patients undergoing pancreatic duct stenting had lower serum amylase levels 6, 12 and 24 h after ERCP than those of patients who did not.

Conclusion

Patients with gallstones have a higher risk of developing pancreatitis. Young age, long course of disease, gallbladder wall thickness >3 mm, sand-like stones, history of pancreatic disease, pancreatic duct visualization and number of intubation ≥2 are risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention using topical epinephrine: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Multiple drugs and techniques have been studied for the prevention of PEP. Topical epinephrine has shown mixed results and is still not widely accepted as an alternative for prevention of PEP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical epinephrine in preventing PEP. Methods  A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching Cochrane library database, Embase and PubMed up to August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for prevention of PEP. Outcomes included prevention of PEP with use of topical epinephrine and evaluation of whether addiing epinephrine provides any additional benefit in preventing PEP. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Results  Eight studies, including six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, RR = 0.63 (CI 0.32-1.24) with heterogeneity (I2 = 72 %). However, on a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine significantly decreases the risk of PEP when compared to placebo alone (means no intervention was done including no rectal indomethacin)., RR = 0.32 (0.18-0.57). In another subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in using topical epinephrine along with rectal indomethacin in preventing PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone RR = 0.87 (0.46-1.64). Conclusion  Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional benefit in preventing PEP when used in conjunction with rectal indomethacin. In subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine appeared to decrease risk of PEP in the absence of rectal indomethacin, and could be considered when rectal indomethacin is unavailable or if there is a contraindication to its use.

Acute management of pancreatitis: the key to best outcomes

Acute pancreatitis (AP) accounts for over 230 000 US and 28 000 UK hospital admissions annually. Abdominal pain is the most common presenting symptom in AP but may not reflect severity. The clinical challenge is identifying the 20% of patients in whom AP will be severe. We summarise the common aetiologies, the risk stratification strategies including the simplified Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis, acute management approaches in the initial presentation setting, conditions for using advance imaging and opinions on antibiotic use. Some warning signs of impending complications are also discussed.

Pancreatic stents in ERCP. Where are we?

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication most feared by endoscopists. Incidence ranges widelly from 2.1% to 24.4%, which results from patient heterogeneity and differences in endoscopist expertise, method, PEP definition, and severity. Pathophysiology is multifactorial, and involves a combination of chemical, thermal, mechanical, hydrostatic, enzymatic, allergic, and microbiological factors resulting from papillary instrumentation and/or contrast administration within the pancreatic duct (volume and osmolarity). Even genetic abnormalities may represent a risk factor, as is the case with homozygous alpha-1-antitrypsin deficiency, which leads to an increase in hemorrhagic PEP rates.

ERCP induced and non-ERCP-induced acute pancreatitis: Two distinct clinical entities?

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disease of varied etiology; however, the most common causes of AP are gallstones and alcohol abuse. AP has emerged as the most frequent complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Post-ERCP pancreatitis is generally a clinically irrelevant condition; however, it can be severe or even fatal in up to 0.8% of cases. Different clinical courses and outcomes have been observed between mild and severe AP of different etiologies (i.e., non-ERCP AP and post-ERCP AP), which opens the discussion as to whether they are the same or distinct clinical entities.

Does rectal diclofenac reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis? A district general hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

There is controversy in the literature recently regarding the efficacy of rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of PEP in three distinct groups of patients at the Royal United Hospital, Bath: no use of rectal diclofenac, selective use and blanket use without contraindication.

METHOD

Readmission data, blood results, radiology reports and discharge summaries were used to identify patients with PEP from August 2010 to December 2015. The administration of rectal diclofenac postprocedure was recorded from the endoscopy reporting system.

RESULTS

1318 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) were performed by four endoscopists during the study period with 66 (5.0%) cases of pancreatitis. 445 ERCPs were performed prior to the introduction of NSAID use during which time, with an incidence of 35 (7.9%) episodes of PEP. During the selective period of NSAID use (high-risk patients) 539 ERCPs were performed and 72 (13.4%) patients received NSAIDs. 17 (3.2%) developed PEP. 334 ERCPs were performed when NSAIDs were given to all patients without contraindication. 289 (86.5%) of patients received rectal diclofenac and 13 (3.9%) developed pancreatitis. There is a statistically significant decrease in PEP comparing the groups of patients receiving NSAIDs selectively (p=0.0009) or routinely (p=0.0172) when compared with none. There is no difference between the selective and routine group (p=0.571).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate that the introduction of a selective or routine use of NSAIDs for PEP in a District General Hospital (DGH) significantly decreases the risk of pancreatitis (risk reduction 43.7%).

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several recent studies suggested that nonsteroidal anti-inflammation drugs (NSAIDs) could prevent the pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, the routes of administration, the dosages of NSAIDs and the potential efficacy in reducing the severity of pancreatitis remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of NSAIDs for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Elsevier and Web of Science databases up to 1 October 2016 for relevant studies.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared to the controls, the risk of pancreatitis was much lower in the NSAIDs group (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.48-0.67, P < 0.0001). However, NSAIDs were not effective in reducing the risk of moderate to severe pancreatitis compared with placebo (OR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57-1.00). In the subanalyses, rectal administration was the only effective route (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.62), and the risk of PEP was reduced in both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.52-0.76) and case-control articles (C-Cs) (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.28-0.58).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic administration of NSAIDs reduced the incidence of PEP in both RCTs and C-Cs, especially when rectally administered, but was not effective in reducing the risk of moderate to severe pancreatitis.

Assessment of the July effect in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Nationwide Inpatient Sample

AIM

To assess incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis in the early (July/August/September) vs the late (April/May/June) academic year and evaluate in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total hospitalization charge between these time periods.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using the 2012 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Patients with International Classification of Diseases, 9^th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9 CM) procedure codes for ERCP were included. Patients were excluded from the study if they had an ICD-9 CM code for a principal diagnosis of acute pancreatitis, if the ERCP was performed before or on the day of admission or if they were admitted to non-teaching hospitals. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as an ICD-9 CM code for a secondary diagnosis of acute pancreatitis in patients who received an ERCP as delineated above. ERCPs performed during the months of July, August and September was compared to those performed in April, May and June in academic hospitals. ERCPs performed at academic hospitals during the early vs late year were compared. Primary outcome was incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, length LOS, and total hospitalization charge. Proportions were compared using fisher’s exact test and continuous variables using student t-test. Multivariable regression was performed.

RESULTS

From the 36480032 hospitalizations in 2012 in the United States, 6248 were included in the study (3065 in July/August/September and 3183 in April/May/June) in the 2012 academic year. Compared with patients admitted in July/August/September, patients admitted in April/May/June had no statistical difference in all variables including mean age, percent female, Charleston comorbidity index, race, median income, and hospital characteristics including region, bed size, and location. Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in early vs late academic year were not statistically significant (OR = 1.03, 95%CI: 0.71-1.51, P = 0.415). Similarly, the adjusted odds ratio of mortality, LOS, and total hospitalization charge in early compared to late academic year were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis does not differ at academic institutions depending on the time of year. Similarly, mortality, LOS, and total hospital charge do not demonstrate the existence of a temporal effect, suggesting that trainee level of experience does not impact clinical outcomes in patients undergoing ERCP.

Periorbital Ecchymosis (Raccoon Eye) and Orbital Hematoma following Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a conventional technique for diagnosis and treatment of pancratobiliary diseases, which is associated with various complications, including pancreatitis, hemorrhage, cholangitis, perforation, and mortality. In our case, a 69-year-old woman with positive hepatobiliary symptoms underwent ERCP, at the end of which a rare complication (raccoon eye) occurred, which was hypothesized to be due to amyloidosis, but the patient refused to complete the diagnostic procedure and became symptom free after 3 weeks. Racoon eye or periorbital ecchymosis is caused by blood tracking into periorbital tissues, which is frequently observed after head trauma but is also observed in systemic diseases, such as amyloidosis, neuroblastoma, and surgical interventions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of raccoon eye after ERCP; further reports will help to confirm that this complication should also be considered before performing ERCP and that complete diagnostic tests for the predisposing diseases prior to ERCP are necessary.

Diclofenac sodium versus ceftazidime for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We aimed to compare the efficacy of prophylactic, parenterally administered ceftazidime and rectally applied diclofenac sodium for the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent ERCP. In a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, patients received a suppository containing diclofenac sodium rectally (100 mg) and placebo intravenously (group A) or ceftazidime intravenously (1 g) and placebo rectally (group B) immediately before the procedure. The serum and urine amylase levels were recorded and the patients were clinically evaluated after ERCP.

RESULTS

Of the 272 patients enrolled (group A: 129; group B: 143), 32 developed pancreatitis (group A: 11 [8.5 %]; group B: 21 [14.7 %]; P = 0.17; relative risk = 1.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.86-3.43). The severity of the pancreatitis or complications did not significantly differ between the groups. A serum amylase level of ≥560 U/L and urine amylase level of ≥1150 U/L indicated a positive likelihood ratio for post-ERCP pancreatitis of ≥10. Moreover, the threshold visual analog scale score of ≤5 for abdominal pain after ERCP had excellent diagnostic potential for predicting the presence or absence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PEP incidence did not differ between the ceftazidime and diclofenac sodium groups. In patients with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug contraindications, antibiotics can be considered a safe alternative to diclofenac sodium for PEP prevention. Moreover, the visual analog scale for abdominal pain has excellent diagnostic value for predicting PEP. CLINICAL TRIALS.

GOV NUMBER

NCT 01784445.

Nabumetone use and risk of acute pancreatitis in a case-control study

BACKGROUND

It remains unknown whether nabumetone increases or decreases acute pancreatitis risk. To investigate this, we conducted a population-based case-control study using the database from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Program.

METHODS

We analysed 5384 cases aged 20-84 years who had their first attack of acute pancreatitis during 1998-2011 and 21,536 controls without acute pancreatitis, and matched them according to sex, age and year in which acute pancreatitis was diagnosed. Never use of nabumetone was defined as subjects who had never received a nabumetone prescription; active use as subjects receiving a minimum of one prescription for nabumetone within 7 days before acute pancreatitis diagnosis and non-active use of nabumetone as subjects who did not receive a prescription for nabumetone within 7 days before but received at least one prescription for nabumetone ≥8 days before. The odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated to investigate the risk of acute pancreatitis associated with nabumetone use, using the multivariable unconditional logistic regression model.

RESULTS

The adjusted odds ratio of acute pancreatitis was 3.69 (95%CI 1.69, 8.05) for subjects with active use of nabumetone compared with those with never use. The odds ratios decreased to 1.0 (95%CI 0.88, 1.12) for subjects with non-active use.

CONCLUSIONS

Active use of nabumetone may increase the risk of acute pancreatitis.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: When should we do it?

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is an accurate imaging modality in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, its use has been substantially reduced due to the invasiveness of procedure, the risk of complications and the widespread availability of non-invasive cross-section imaging techniques (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound). Since the introduction of endoscopic sphincterotomy, ERP has transformed from diagnostic method to an almost exclusively therapeutic procedure. Pancreatic duct injection substantially increased the risk of post-ERP pancreatitis (1.6%-15.7%); therefore, according to international guidelines ERP is recommended only in cases where biliary intervention is required. However, the role of ERP in the management of pancreatic diseases is currently not clearly defined, but in some cases the filling of pancreatic duct may provide essential information complementing the results of non-invasive imaging techniques. The aim of this publication is to systematically summarize the literature dealing with the diagnostic yield of ERP. We would like to define the precise indications of ERP and overview a diagnostic protocol of pancreatic diseases depending on international guidelines and the opinion of Hungarian experts, because it may improve the diagnostic accuracy, minimize of burden of patients and reduce the risk of procedure related complications.

Outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases: A comprehensive review

Endoscopic stenting has become a widely method for the management of various malignant and benign pancreatico-biliary disorders. Biliary and pancreatic stents are devices made of plastic or metal used primarily to establish patency of an obstructed bile or pancreatic duct and may also be used to treat biliary or pancreatic leaks, pancreatic fluid collections and to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to evaluate the outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases.