Risk factors of pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Review of literature and practical remarks based on approximately 10,000 ERCPs

Risk Factors and Clinical Impacts of Post-Pancreatectomy Acute Pancreatitis After Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis of 298 Patients Based on the ISGPS Definition and Grading System

Background

The definition and grading system of post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP) has recently been proposed by ISGPS. This study aimed to put this definition and classification into practice and investigate the potential risk factors and clinical impacts of PPAP.

Methods

Demographic and perioperative data of consecutive patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) from January 2019 to July 2021 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. The diagnostic criteria of PPAP published by ISGPS, consisting of biochemical, radiologic, and clinical parameters, were adopted. The risk factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 298 patients were enrolled in this study, and the total incidence of PPAP was 52.4% (150 patients). Stratified by clinical impacts of PPAP, the incidences of grades B and C PPAP were 48.9% and 3.5%, respectively. PPAP after PD was significantly associated with pancreatic fistula and other unfavorable complications. Soft pancreatic texture (OR 3.0) and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L (OR 3.6) were the independent predictors of PPAP, AUC 0.613. Stratified by the grade of PPAP, soft pancreatic texture (OR 2.7) and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L (OR 3.4) were the independent predictors of grade B PPAP, and soft pancreatic texture (OR 19.3), operation duration >360 min (OR 13.8), and the pancreatic anastomosis by using conventional duct to mucosa methods (OR 10.4) were the independent predictors of grade C PPAP. PPAP complicated with pancreatic fistula significantly increased the severe complications and mortality compared to only PPAP occurrence.

Conclusion

PPAP was not an uncommon complication after PD and was associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes, especially since it was complicated with pancreatic fistula. Soft pancreatic texture and CRP ≥ 180 mg/L were the independent predictors of PPAP. Higher-volume multicenter and prospective studies are strongly needed.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Complications and Their Management Strategies: A "Scoping" Literature Review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a well-known procedure with both diagnostic and therapeutic utilities in managing pancreaticobiliary conditions. With the advancements of endoscopic techniques, ERCP has become a relatively safe and effective procedure. However, as ERCP is increasingly being utilized for different advanced techniques, newer complications have been noticed. Post-ERCP complications are known, and mostly include pancreatitis, infection, hemorrhage, and perforation. The risks of these complications vary depending on several factors, such as patient selection, endoscopist's skills, and the difficulties involved during the procedure. This review discusses post-ERCP complications and management strategies with new and evolving concepts.

Split-dose or hybrid nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and N-acetylcysteine therapy for prevention of post-retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Despite significant technical and training improvements, the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has not significantly dropped. Although many studies have evaluated the efficacy of various agents, e.g. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, octreotide, antioxidants, administered via various dosages, routes (oral, intrarectal or parenteral), and schedules (before or after the procedure), the results have been conflicting.

AIM

To evaluate efficacy of three pharmacologic prophylactic methods for prevention of PEP.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center randomized trial, patients who underwent first-time ERCP for choledocholithiasis were randomly assigned to three groups. The first group received 600 mg N-acetylcysteine 15 min prior to ERCP, and per-rectum administration of 50 mg indomethacin both prior to and after completion of the ERCP. The second group was administered only the 50 mg indomethacin per-rectum both prior to and after the ERCP. The third group was administered per-rectum 100 mg indomethacin only after the ERCP, representing the control group given the guideline-recommended regimen. The primary end-point was PEP prevention.

RESULTS

Among the total 211 patients evaluated during the study, 186 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and completed the protocol. The percentages of patients who developed PEP in each of the three groups were not significantly different (χ² = 2.793, P = 0.247). Among the acute PEP cases, for all groups, 14 patients developed mild pancreatitis (77.77%) and 4 moderate. No severe cases of PEP occurred, and in all PEP cases the resolution was favorable. No adverse events related to the medications (digestive hemorrhage, rectal irritation, or allergies) occurred.

CONCLUSION

The efficacies of split-dose indomethacin and combined administration (N-acetylcysteine with indomethacin) for preventing PEP were similar to that of the standard regimen.