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%).

UK wide survey on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

In 2010, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy delivered guidelines on the prophylaxis of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). These included Grade A recommendations advising the use of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high-risk cases. Our study aim was to capture the current practice of UK biliary endoscopists in the prevention of PEP.

DESIGN

In summer 2012, an anonymous online 15-item survey was emailed to 373 UK consultant gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons and radiologists identified to perform ERCP.

RESULTS

The response rate was 59.5% (222/373). Of the respondents, 52.5% considered ever using PPS for the prevention of PEP. PPS users always attempted insertion for the following procedural risk factors: pancreatic sphincterotomy (48.9%), suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (46.5%), pancreatic duct instrumentation (35.9%), previous PEP (25.2%), precut sphincterotomy (8.5%) and pancreatic duct injection (7.8%). Prophylactic NSAID use was significantly associated with attempts at PPS placement (p<0.001). 64.1% of non-PPS users cited a lack of conviction in their benefit as the main reason for their decision. Self-reported pharmacological use rates for PEP prevention were: NSAIDs (34.6%), antibiotics (20.6%), rapid intravenous fluids (13.2%) and octreotide (1.6%). 6% routinely measured amylase post-ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite strong evidence-based guidelines for prevention of PEP, less than 53% of ERCP practitioners use pancreatic stenting or NSAIDs. This suggests a need for the development of British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines to increase awareness in the UK. Even among stent users, PPS are being underused for most high-risk cases. Prophylactic pharmacological measures were rarely used as was routine post-ERCP serum amylase measurement.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is the centre better? The case against centralisation of ERCP services

More than 48 000 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCP) are performed in the UK per annum; the majority within district general hospitals. The proposal for centralisation of ERCP services is based on evidence that technical success, length of stay and complication rates are related to the numbers of procedures performed. Local units wishing to continue their ERCP practice, must demonstrate that they are performing sufficient numbers of procedures in a safe, timely and competent fashion.

Emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in critically ill patients is a safe and effective procedure

Emergency ERCP may be required in patients with severe cholangitis who rapidly deteriorate with multi-organ dysfunction and who cannot wait until the next available elective list. A significant proportion of patients require ventilatory and inotropic support. We describe our experience on the outcome of emergency ERCP in this cohort of critically ill patients. Medical records of cases undergoing ERCP between November 2008 and November 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who were in intensive care unit or required general anaesthesia due to haemodynamic compromise at the time of ERCP were included. Total of 2237 ERCPs were performed during this period, of which 36 (2%) emergency ERCP's were performed in 33 patients. The median age was 79 years. All procedures were performed under general anaesthesia in emergency operating room. In 27/36 procedures (75%), the patients required inotropes. Indications included cholangitis (78%), pancreatitis (14%) and post-operative bile leak (8%). Biliary cannulation was achieved in 100% of cases. Endoscopic findings included CBD stones (64%), CBD stones and an additional pathology (8%), bile leak (8%), CBD stricture (5%), Mirizzi's (3%) and blocked plastic stent (3%). In 23/36 (64%) procedures a stent was inserted. In 11/36 (30%) procedures a balloon trawl was sufficient to clear the bile duct. Thirty-day mortality was 25%. Although the 30-day mortality remains high due to multi-organ failure, ERCP is successful and effective in the majority of patients and results in a good outcome for this cohort of critically ill patients, in whom the prognosis is inevitably poor without emergency biliary drainage.