post-ERCP Pancreatitis In Patients Research Articles

Risk Factors for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Removal of Common Bile Duct Stones: An Update in Chinese Patients with Choledocholithiasis

Aim: Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been widely used in endoscopic surgery for many biliary and pancreatic diseases. Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication that occurs, even with expert surgeons. However, few reports have addressed the risk of PEP by focusing on the removal of Common Bile Duct Stones (CBDS). Methods: To detect potential risk factors for PEP after endoscopic removal of CBDS, the medical records of CBDS patients who received ERCP procedures at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University between January 2021 and December 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient- and procedure-related data were collected, and PEP was reevaluated. Single- and multiplevariable analyses were conducted to identify potential risk factors. Results: A total of 1,251 procedures were performed in 1,173 patients and PEP occurred in 84 cases (6.71%). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses showed that female sex (P= 0.049, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 1.002-2.521), cerebral infarction (P=0.011, 95% CI: 1.197-3.964), acute pancreatitis history (P=0.001, 95% CI: 2.436-7.249), fatty liver disease (P=0.021, 95% CI: 1.140 -4.843), common bile duct diameter <10 mm (P=0.005, 95% CI: 1.299-4.313), and Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilatation (EBD) (P=0.01, 95% CI: 0.321-0.855) were independent risk factors for PEP in CBDS patients. Conclusion: Female sex, a history of Fatty Liver Disease (FLD), previous acute pancreatitis, and common bile duct stenosis are risk factors for PEP, whereas EPBD is a protective factor for PEP in patients with CBDS, which should be considered by clinicians.

Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on prospective, randomized, and controlled trials.

To evaluate the efficacy of nafamostat mesilate in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) by conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. We retrieved for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about compare nafamostat mesilate with placebo in preventing PEP published before August 23, 2022, in 5 major electronic databases. The primary outcome was PEP rate, and the secondary outcome was post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA) rate. Subgroup analyses were performed to reveal the factors that may affect the preventive effect of nafamostat. Assessment of the quality of evidence was conducted based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. According to the search strategy and criteria of inclusion and exclusion, 8 articles with a number of 3210 patients were included. The PEP incidence of the nafamostat group was inferior compared with the placebo group (4.6% vs 8.5%, RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.66). Subgroup analyses revealed that nafamostat had a preventive effect on patients with different risk stratification (High-risk: RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.86, Low-risk: RR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.17-0.47). Different doses (20 mg: RR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.36-0.69, 50 mg: RR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.27-0.74) and duration (<12 hour: RR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.37-0.81, ≥12 h: RR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.29-0.66) of administration of nafamostat are adequate for the prevention of PEP, but postoperative administration may not help (preoperative: RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.39-0.69, postoperative: RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.23-1.23). Nafamostat may not efficacious in preventing severe PEP (Mild: RR = 0.49, 95% CI, 0.35-0.68, Moderate: RR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25-0.86, Severe: RR = 0.91, 95% CI, 0.25-3.29) or in low-quality studies (Low-quality: RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.13-3.60, High-quality: RR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.37-0.65). Preoperative use of nafamostat can effectively prevent PEP in patients with various risk stratification. Nafamostat can prevent mild and moderate PEP, but may not prevent severe PEP and PEHA. There should be more high-quality RCTs in future to strengthen the evidence of nafamostat in preventing PEP.

A new classification of periampullary diverticulum: cannulation of papilla on the inner margins of the diverticulum (Type IIa) is more challenging

BackgroundPeriampullary diverticulum (PAD) may make the performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with choledocholithiasis more difficult and may increase complication rates. The present study evaluated the effects of PAD on first-time ERCP in patients with choledocholithiasis.MethodsOutcomes were compared in patients with and without PAD and in those with four types of PAD: papilla located completely inside the diverticulum (type I), papilla located in the inner (type II a) and outer (type II b) margins of the diverticulum; and papilla located outside the diverticulum (type III).Parameters compared included cannulation time and rates of difficult cannulation, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and perforation.ResultsThe median cannulation times in patients with types I, II a, II b, III PAD and in those without PAD were 2.0 min, 5.0 min, 0.67 min, 3.5 min, and 3.5 min, respectively, with difficult cannulation rates in these groups of 7.4%, 31.4%, 8.3%, 18.9%, and 23.2%, respectively. The rates of PEP in patients with and without PAD were 5.3% and 5.1%, respectively. Four patients with and one without PAD experienced perforation.ConclusionsThe division of PAD into four types may be more appropriate than the traditional division into three types. Cannulation of type I and II b PAD was easier than cannulation of patients without PAD, whereas cannulation of type II a PAD was more challenging. PAD may not increase the rates of PEP.

Risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde pancreatography pancreatitis in malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction: a retrospective single-center study

Background. Decompression interventions under the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the method of choice in malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction (MEHBO). Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. Many studies have been performed to identify the risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, these works in general include the analysis of ERCP in patients with various causes of biliary obstruction without subdividing patients with malignant obstruction.&#x0D; Purpose.The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for PEP in patients with MEHBO.&#x0D; Materials and Methods. A retrospective analysis of 100 cases of ERCP in MEHBO was done. PEP was in 2 patients, and 14 patients had hyperamylasemia (HA). The following factors were analyzed: gender, age, level of MEHBO, obstruction of the main pancreatic duct (MPD), total bilirubin level, history of endoscopic papillosphincterotomy (EPST), periampullary diverticulum, successful ERCP, primary selective biliary cannulation, catheterization and/or contrast injection into MPD, Precut EPST, successful decompression.&#x0D; Results and discussion. Univariate analysis showed that PEP is associated with an obstruction at the level of the proximal and middle third of the hepaticocholedochus (p = 0.004) and with absence of MPD obstruction (p = 0.022); female gender (p = 0.012), obstruction at the level of the proximal and middle third of the hepaticocholedochus (p &lt; 0.001), absence of MPD obstruction (p &lt; 0.001), catheterization and/or contrast injection into MPD (p = 0.040) are associated with PEP or hyperamylasemia (HA); female gender (p = 0.024), obstruction at the level of the proximal and middle third of the hepaticocholedochus (p &lt; 0.001), absence of MPD obstruction (p=0.006), catheterization and/or contrast injection into MPD (p = 0.035), successful decompression (p = 0.004) are associated with HA. Multivariate regression analysis showed that, for PEP and for PEP or HA as well as for HA, the risk factors are obstruction at the level of the proximal and middle third of the hepaticocholedochus (p = 0.005; p &lt; 0.001; p &lt; 0.001, respectively) and absence of MPD obstruction (p = 0.022; p &lt; 0.001; p = 0.008, respectively). Female gender is a risk factor for PEP or HA and HA (p = 0.011; p = 0.028, respectively), and catheterization and/or contrast injection into MPD are risk factors for PEP or HA (p = 0.04). Conclusion. Development of PEP in MEHBO depends on the localization of a tumor and involvement of the pancreas. The risk factors for PEP in MEHBO are tumor localization at the level of the middle and proximal third of the hepaticocholedochus and absence of MPD obstruction.

Does early application of needle-knife sphincterotomy (NKS) in patients with difficult biliary cannulation increase the risk of postERCP pancreatitis? A single centre study.

To determine that early needle-knife sphincterotomy does not increase post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with difficult biliary cannulation as compared to standard cannulation. This prospective single-centre cohort study was carried out at Pak Emirates Military Hospital from January 2021 to June 2021. Patients requiring ERCP were enrolled in the study (according to inclusion and exclusion criteria) and were subsequently allotted different groups according to the technique used for deep biliary cannulation. Qualitative data was analysed using frequencies and chi square statistics whereas, quantitative data was analysed using mean±SD and one way ANOVA test. The cohort included 114 patients with 52.6% male patients and predominance of relatively younger age group (31-45 years). The most common indication for ERCP was choledocholithiasis (36%) with an overall technical success rate of 96%. Deep cannulation was achieved either through standard cannulation (56%), double guidewire and/or pancreatic stent assisted (10.5%), use of early Needle-Knife Sphincterotomy (19%), NKS as a last resort (3.5%) or Transpancreatic Stenting and/or combined sphincterotomy (6%). Pancreatitis as a complication occurred in 4(3.5%) patients, bleeding in 2(1.8%), on-table desaturation in 2(1.8%) and perforation in 1(0.9%) patient. The occurrence of pancreatitis was only related significantly to inadvertent PD cannulation through univariate and logistic regression analysis whereas, multiple cannulations (>5), gender, age, classification of papilla and the use of early NKS had no impact on pancreatitis or the occurrence of other complications. NKS is an effective and safe modality for deep biliary cannulation and achieving technical success where cannulation is deemed difficult and does not increase the risk of PEP if done by experienced endoscopists in high volume centres.

Magnesium Sulfate for Prevention of Post-ERCP-Pancreatitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Studies suggest that intrapancreatic calcium has an important role in activating pancreatic enzymes; in addition, elevated intraductal pressure is required for development of pancreatitis. Magnesium sulfate (MS), as a calcium antagonist and a muscle relaxant of the Oddi sphincter, is suggested to reduce the incidence and severity of post-ERCP-pancreatitis (PEP) in this article. We included 270 patients who referred for ERCP between March 2017 and March 2018. They were enrolled into MS (2 g) and placebo (normal saline) groups, administered 1 hour before and 6 hours after the procedure. The ERCPs were done by fellows of gastroenterology under supervision of expert physicians. The incidence and severity of PEP were followed. PEP was seen in 12 (8.9%) patients in the MS group and 17 (12.6%) in the placebo group (P value=0.33). The incidence of PEP in high risk patients group (P value=0.017). Although the usage of MS was not able to prevent PEP in all patients enrolled in this study, but it could significantly reduce the incidence of PEP in high risk patients of intervention group in comparison with placebo group. The median length of hospital stay was also significantly lower in new drug group in contrast to placebo.

PREDICTIVE FACTORS FOR PROPHYLAXIS EFFECT OF NAPROXEN IN POST ENDOSCOPIC PANCREATITIS

&nbsp;Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can be associated with complications like post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We aimed to examine the possible influence of selective demographic and clinical factors on efficacy of periprocedural 500 mg Naproxen single dose rectal administration in prevention of PEP in patients after diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP. This randomized prospective mono-centric clinical study was implemented during January-April 2022 on 30 patients referred for ERCP at the University Clinical Center of Kosovo-Prishtina. Before ERCP, all patients received periprocedural 500mg Naproxen single dose rectal administration in prevention of PEP. The levels of amylase, lipase, and CRP were measured before ERCP, and 4/24h after. The incidence of PEP was 16,67% (5/ 30) – 2 (11,76%) of the male and 3 (23,08%) of the female (p=0,4101). No significant differences between the patients without/with PEP was found related to age (p=0,8674), BMI (p=0,5591) and duration of procedure (p=0,5590). Pancreatic duct wire cannulation happened in 5 (16,67%) patients, while only 2 (40%) of them developed PEP. Amylases levels 24h after ERCP were significantly higher in patients with PEP (p=0,0005). Between patients without/with PEP there were significant differences in lipase levels before/4h/24h after ERCP for p=0,0451 vs. p=0,0278 vs. p=0,005 respectively. Related to CRP levels, no significant difference was found between the groups at any measurement time. Analyzed potential influencing factors didn’t show significant influence on efficacy of Naproxen in prevention of PEP after ERCP. More extensive controlled trials are underway in Republic of Kosovo to precise the effects of Naproxen in reduction of PEP after ERCP. Key words: Naproxen; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatorydrugs; pancreatic duct cannulation; post-endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography; pancreatitis

Increased post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for choledocholithiasis without acute cholangitis.

Choledocholithiasis is the most common indication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Identifying risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is important for reducing the risk of developing PEP after common bile duct (CBD) stone removal. However, studies examining the risk factors for PEP for CBD stones are scarce. The aim of this study was to examine whether the presence or absence of acute cholangitis is a clinical risk factor for PEP in patients with CBD stones. In this multicenter retrospective study, 1539 patients with naïve papillae were divided into patients without and with acute cholangitis. We compared the incidence of PEP between the two groups using one-to-one propensity score matching to adjust for the potential confounding factors of PEP. In the entire cohort, the rates of PEP in patients without and with acute cholangitis were 9.6% (52/542) and 1.8% (18/997), respectively (P<0.001, odds ratio=5.8). In the propensity-matched cohort, the rates of PEP in patients without and with acute cholangitis were 8.3% (27/326) and 2.5% (8/326), respectively (P=0.002, odds ratio=3.6). The rate of PEP was significantly higher in patients without acute cholangitis than in those with acute cholangitis after adjusting for the confounding factors of PEP. The absence of acute cholangitis may be an important clinical risk factor for PEP due to CBD stone removal. In patients without acute cholangitis, endoscopists should explain the specific risk of PEP carefully and actively implement prophylaxis against PEP.

The Incidence of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Complications in Patients With Liver Transplant: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

BackgroundExisting literature on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications in patients with liver transplant remains scarce and largely inconsistent. We therefore aimed to systematically review and analyze the literature on complication rates associated with ERCP in patients with liver transplant.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases from inception through March 2020 to identify all the studies that evaluated post-ERCP complications in patients with liver transplant. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using the random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, and a pooled odds ratio (OR) and event rates were calculated. Forest plots were generated, and publication bias was assessed for using conventional techniques.ResultsFourteen studies with a total of 1,787 patients were analyzed. In total, 3,192 ERCPs were performed on these patients. The pooled all-complication rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.035 - 0.075). Procedural complications analyzed included post-ERCP pancreatitis 3.4% (95% CI: 0.025 - 0.047), bleeding 1.1% (95% CI: 0.006 - 0.020), infections 0.2% (95% CI: 0.025 - 0.047), and cholangitis 0.8% (95% CI: 0.004 - 0.020). No cases of periprocedural death were reported. The pooled OR for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with liver transplant compared to patients without liver transplant was 1.289 (95% CI: 0.455 - 3.653, P = 0.633, I2 = 72.88%).ConclusionPost-ERCP complication rates in liver transplant patients are comparable to the general population and hence, peri-procedural evaluation and management may follow the current standards of care in this patient population.

Post-ESWL and post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with chronic pancreatitis: Do they share the same risks?

Endoscopic intervention combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is recommended as the first line therapy for large pancreatic stones, yet both can cause adverse events. The aim of the study was to identify the risk factors for post-procedural pancreatitis. Consecutive patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic stones treated with both ESWL and subsequent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) from October 2016 to December 2019 were prospectively enrolled. Multivariate logistic analyses were performed to detect risk factors for post-ESWL and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). A total of 714 patients (507 males, 45.60±12.52years) were included in this study. A total of 80 patients (11.2%) developed post-ESWL pancreatitis,while 33 patients (4.6%) suffered from PEP. Steatorrhea (P=.018), multiple stones (P=.043), and stones located at the head combined with the body or tail of the pancreas (P=.015) were identified as independent protective factors for post-ESWL pancreatitis. The history of acute exacerbations (P=.013), post-ESWL pancreatitis (P<.001) and stricture dilation during ERCP (P=.002) were identified as risk factors for PEP. More attention should be paid to patients with post-ESWL pancreatitis, as well as a history of acute exacerbations and stricture dilation during ERCP to prevent PEP. (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT04619511).

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

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

Nafamostat Mesylate is Not Effective in Preventing Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with complications such as post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Protease inhibitors, including nafamostat mesylate (NM), have been evaluated for prophylaxis against PEP. We describe the first multicenter randomized controlled trial assessing the prophylactic efficacy of NM against PEP. In this multicenter prospective study, we aimed to enroll 800 patients aged ≥ 20years with a planned ERCP between December 2012 and March 2019. The primary outcome was the incidence and severity of PEP in patients who did not receive NM (non-NM) versus those who did (NM; 20mg). Secondary outcomes included the incidence of PEP by NM initiation (pre- and post-ERCP), risk factors for PEP, and NM-related adverse events. Only 441 of the planned 800 patients were enrolled (non-NM: n = 149; NM: n = 292 [pre-ERCP NM: n = 144; post-ERCP NM: n = 148]). Patient characteristics were balanced at baseline with no significant differences between groups. PEP occurred in 40/441 (9%) patients (non-NM: n = 15 [10%]; NM: n = 25 [9%]), including 17 (12%) and eight (8%) in the pre-ERCP and post-ERCP NM groups, respectively. In the NM group, the incidence of PEP was lower in the low-risk group than in the high-risk group. Pancreatic injection and double-guidewire technique were independent risk factors for PEP. NM-related adverse events of hyperkalemia occurred in two (0.7%) patients. We found no evidence for the prophylactic effect of NM against PEP, regardless of the timing of administration; however, further studies are needed.

Prophylactic effect of rectal indomethacin plus nitroglycerin administration for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in female patients.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) and rectal indomethacin suppository are recommended to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Clinical trials on the use of nitroglycerin to reduce PEP have reached no definitive conclusion. Our study aimed to determine whether treatment with rectal indomethacin plus nitroglycerin could eliminate the need for PSP in patients. In this randomized clinical trial, patients were allocated into groups using a random number table, with each patient receiving a pre-made envelope containing their intervention prior to ERCP. The three treatment groups were: the placebo group, the indomethacin + nitroglycerin group, and the PSP group. The subjects were assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. A total of 526 patients were eligible for inclusion. The placebo group included 176 patients, the indomethacin + nitroglycerin group included 176 patients and the PSP group included 174.A diagnosis of PEP was made in 64 (12.2%) cases. The rate of PEP in the three study groups placebo group, indomethacin + nitroglycerin group and the PSP group was 19.3%, 5.1%, and 12.1%, respectively. The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the indomethacin + nitroglycerin group was 7% lower than that in the PSP. Indomethacin + nitroglycerin is superior to PSP in preventing and relieving the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with difficult intubation. Indomethacin plus nitroglycerin can avoid the need for PSP in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Current Controlled Trials ChiCTR2000033944.

Efficacy of low dose rectal diclofenac for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Propensity score-matched analysis.

Acute pancreatitis is a major adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreases the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the efficacy of low dose rectal NSAIDs for preventing PEP remains controversial. We performed a retrospective study of 301 patients with native papilla and a body weight of <50kg who underwent ERCP between September 2010 and October 2019. After July 2016, a 25mg dose of rectal diclofenac was routinely administered within 15min before ERCP (NSAIDs group, n=72) and the control group (n=229) consisted of patients undergoing ERCP before this date without treatment. We compared the incidence of PEP between the two groups using propensity score matching. A total of 66 pairs of patients in each group were selected. The patients and procedural-related factors were similar in both groups. In total, 15 patients (11.4%) developed PEP: 12.1% (8/66) in the NSAIDs group and 10.6% (7/66) in the control group (Odds ratio (OR) 1.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-3.5; P=0.78). There was no significant difference in incidence of other adverse events related to ERCP between the two groups. Prophylactic administration of a 25mg dose of rectal diclofenac did not reduce the incidence of PEP in patients with a native papilla and a body weight of <50kg in this study and a certain dose of rectal NSAIDs, such as a 100-mg dose, should be administered regardless of body weight to prevent PEP.

S0079 Prophylactic Rectal Indomethacin and Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stents (PPS) for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis Are Underutilized in Average and High-Risk Patients Undergoing ERCP

INTRODUCTION: 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 (RI) administered before or immediately after an ERCP is associated with a 35% to 65% reduction in the incidence of PEP. Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent (PPS) placement in high risk patients is also regarded as the most effective mechanical prophylactic approach to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP. We sought to investigate utilization rate of prophylactic RI and PPS in average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP between 2014 and 2019. 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. We examined demographics, high-risk features [history of acute pancreatitis at least 30 days before ERCP, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), sphincterotomy] and incidence of PEP in patients with cumulative risk factors. The subjects were risk-stratified as either average-risk (absence of any of the studied risk factors) or high risk (presence of at least one risk factor). 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. RI and PPS accounted for 82.4% and 12.9% respectively. About 4.8% of patients had both RI and PPS within a day of ERCP procedure. Young individuals (< 40 years) had significantly higher RI use (32.1% vs 26.8%, P < 0.0001) than older individuals but lower PPS placement than older individuals (2.6% vs 4.7%, P < 0.0001). Women had higher RI use compared to men (29.2% vs 25.8%, P < 0.0001) but lower PPS placement (4.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.016) than men. Individuals with three risk factors had the highest PEP rates: female + young + SOD: 20%; female + AP + sphincterotomy: 11.8%, followed by individuals with two risk factors: female + SOD: 11.1% and young + sphincterotomy: 10.7%. CONCLUSION: Only a third of all patients undergoing ERCP received prophylaxis in the form of RI and PPS in this large population-based data. Increased implementation of prophylactic use is needed in patients undergoing ERCP as supported by current guidelines.

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.

Influence of fully covered metal stenting on the risk of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A large multicenter study·

Fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of benign or malignant biliary disorders. However, the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) with transpapillary placement of the FCSEMS remains controversial. This study therefore aimed to investigate the risk of PEP in patients who received FCSEMS implantation. In total, 602 patients who underwent endoscopic transpapillary FCSEMS placement at five Chinese medical centers, between 2011 and 2018, were included in this retrospective study. Patients who were younger than 18years and with stent placement above the papilla were excluded from the study. PEP and the risk factors were reviewed. PEP occurred in 56 (9.3%) patients, and eight (1.3%) of them experienced moderate-to-severe PEP. The incidence of PEP rose to 14.6% (51/349) when patients had no pancreatic duct (PD) dilation, and even to 18.6% if no prophylactic approaches were adopted. Prophylactic PD stenting showed better efficacy in reducing the incidence of PEP than did rectal use of indomethacin (3.5% vs 10.8%, P=0.023). Multivariate logistic regression revealed that difficult cannulation (OR 2.837, 95% CI 1.245-6.465, P=0.013), PD dilation (OR 0.145, 95% CI 0.05-0.422, P<0.001), and PD stenting (OR 0.247, 95% CI 0.089-0.686, P=0.007) were significantly associated with PEP risk. Post-procedure cholecystitis was found in 4.0% of patients. The risk of post-procedure pancreatitis is modestly increased in patients receiving transpapillary FCSEMS placement, particularly when there is absence of PD dilation. Thus, prophylactic pancreatic stenting is recommended in such a condition.

Fluid type and volume reduce risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and length of hospital stay in high-risk patients: a secondary analysis of the INDIEH trial.

Background and study aims Impact of intravenous fluid administration on prophylaxis against post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) has not been rigorously evaluated among patients at high-risk for PEP. Patients and methods Effect of volume and type of fluid administered on PEP incidence was studied through a secondary analysis of high-risk patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangopancreatography (ERCP) as a part of a randomized controlled trial in which all patients received rectal indomethacin. Periprocedural fluid was defined as fluid infused during and after ERCP. Results A total 960 patients were randomized during the trial, of whom 476 (49.6 %) received periprocedural fluids (mean volume = 1245 mL [± 629]). There was a trend towards a lower incidence of PEP in patients who received periprocedural fluid vs. those who did not (5.2 % vs. 8.0 %, P = 0.079). Among those receiving fluids, those who did not develop PEP received a higher mean volume of fluid vs. who developed PEP (1012 ± 725 mL vs. 752 ± 783 mL, P = 0.036). Among 174 patients (37 %) who received LR, patients who did not develop PEP received a higher mean volume of LR vs. those who developed PEP (570 ± 559 mL vs. 329 ± 356 mL, P = 0.006). Length of hospital stay decreased as the volume of periprocedural volume administration increased (r = 0.16, P < 0.001). Conclusion Higher fluid volume and lactated Ringerʼs use during the periprocedural period was associated with a decreased risk of PEP and length of hospital stay beyond rectal indomethacin in high risk patients.

Su1578 POST ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY PANCREATITIS PREVENTION USING TOPICAL EPINEPHRINE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

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 recently been studied for the prevention of PEP and theoretically should work similarly as a PD stent. Topical epinephrine sprayed on the ampulla can reduce edema by arteriolar vasoconstriction and therefore improve pancreatic outflow. Evidence regarding the use of topical epinephrine in the prevention of PEP is inconsistent with some studies favoring their use while other studies did not show any benefit. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to delineate if topical epinephrine is useful in the prevention of PEP. A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching multiple databases until August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated the use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for the prevention of PEP. The characteristics of the participants and outcome measurements (incidence of PEP) were analyzed. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Eight studies, including 6 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Our overall results included two types of studies. Some studies evaluated both topical epinephrine and rectal indomethacin therapy together and some studies compared topical epinephrine with placebo therapy. Five RCTs are of good quality while one was of fair quality. Both the observational studies were of good quality. Overall, there was no difference in the incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, OR=0.62 (CI 0.30-1.25) with heterogeneity (I2=72%). In a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine, when compared to placebo significantly decreases the risk of PEP, OR=0.30 (0.16-0.55). However, in a subgroup analysis, addition of topical epinephrine to rectal indomethacin did not provide any additional advantage in decreasing the incidence of PEP, when compared to rectal indomethacin alone OR=1.15 (0.58-2.28). Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional advantage in combination with rectal indomethacin in the prevention of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP. However, topical epinephrine alone is associated with lower odds of PEP compared to placebo and can be considered if rectal indomethacin is unavailable or there is any contraindication to its use. It may also be considered as a suitable alternative to prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Future studies comparing topical epinephrine versus PD stenting can be considered to evaluate if topical epinephrine provides a similar advantage in decreasing PEP as compared to PD stenting.View Large Image Figure ViewerDownload Hi-res image Download (PPT)

Diclofenac does not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends rectal indomethacin or diclofenac before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, data on the prophylactic effect in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are lacking. This was a retrospective case-control study. In 2009-2018, a total of 2000 ERCPs were performed in 931 patients with PSC. Case procedures (N = 1000 after November 2013) were performed after administration of rectal diclofenac. Control procedures (N = 1000 before November 2013) were performed with the same indication but without diclofenac. Acute post-ERCP pancreatitis and other ERCP-related adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 49 (4.9%) procedures in the diclofenac group and 62 (6.2%) procedures in the control group (p = 0.241). No difference existed between the groups in terms of the severity of pancreatitis or any other acute AEs. The risk of pancreatitis was elevated in patients with native papilla: 11.4% in the diclofenac group and 8.7% in the control group (p = 0.294). In adjusted logistic regression, diclofenac did not reduce the risk of pancreatitis (odds ratio (OR) = 1.074, 95% confidence interval 0.708-1.629, p = 0.737). However, in generalised estimation equations with the advanced model, diclofenac seemed to diminish the risk of pancreatitis (OR = 0.503) but not significantly (p = 0.110). In this large patient cohort in a low-risk unit, diclofenac does not seem to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with PSC. The trend in the pancreatitis rate after ERCP is decreasing. The evaluation of the benefits of diclofenac among PSC patients warrants a randomised controlled study targeted to high-risk patients and procedures.