Biliary stenting with or without sphincterotomy for malignant biliary obstruction: A meta-analysis

AIM: To investigate the benefits of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) before stent placement by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases up to March 2014 were searched. The primary outcome was incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and successful stent insertion rate. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-ERCP bleeding, stent migration and occlusion. The free software Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis.RESULTS: Three studies (n = 338 patients, 170 in the EST group and 168 in the non-EST group) were included. All three studies described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Three RCTs, including 338 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the groups. Although EST reduced the incidence of PEP, it also led to a higher incidence of post-ERCP bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.12-0.93, P = 0.04; OR = 9.70, 95%CI: 1.21-77.75, P = 0.03, respectively).CONCLUSION: EST before stent placement may be useful in reducing the incidence of PEP. However, EST-related complications, such as bleeding and perforation, may offset this effect.     

Risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) abdominal pain in patients without post-ERCP pancreatitis

BackgroundAbdominal pain is often observed after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Few studies have focused on the risk factors of post-ERCP abdominal pain without post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This study aimed to identify risk factors of post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP and investigate characteristics of the abdominal pain in non-PEP patients.MethodsData from patients who underwent ERCP from August 2019 to January 2020 were retrospectively collected. Characteristics of the abdominal pain after ERCP were recorded and compared between PEP and non-PEP patients. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors of non-PEP abdominal pain.ResultsA total of 1295 ERCP procedures were investigated in this study, among which 100 (7.72%) patients presented post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP and 63 (4.86%) patients with PEP. Multivariate analysis found 9 risk factors of non-PEP abdominal pain: age ≤ 65 years [odds ratio (OR): 1.971], primary ERCP (OR: 2.442), dilated extrahepatic bile duct (OR: 1.803), no papilla opening (OR: 2.095), pancreatic guidewire passages (OR: 2.258), white blood cells (WBC) ≤ 6.0 × 10⁹/L (OR: 1.689), platelet (PLT) ≤ 250 × 10⁹/L (OR: 2.505), serum γ-glutamyl transferase (γ ? GT) ≤ 35 U/L (OR: 2.190), and albumin ≥ 40 g/L (OR: 1.762). The PEP group had later pain onset, higher pain frequency and longer hospital stay than those of the non-PEP pain group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain duration, visual analogue scale score and mortality between the PEP group and non-PEP pain group (P > 0.05).ConclusionsThis study indicated that age ≤ 65 years, primary ERCP, dilated extrahepatic bile duct, no papilla opening, pancreatic guidewire passages, lower WBC, lower PLT, normal γ ? GT and elevated albumin were independent risk factors for post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP. The pain occurred earlier in non-PEP patients than in PEP patients.     

Effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-in?ammatory drugs in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To investigate the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched PubMed (1966 to October 2013), Embase (1984 to October 2013) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 4, 2013) for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effectiveness of prophylactic NSAID administration in the prevention of PEP. Using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the overall effect of NSAIDs in preventing the incidences of PEP and moderate to severe pancreatitis.RESULTS: Eight RCTs were identified from the literature search and included 1883 patients that underwent ERCP, with 971 patients in the NSAID group and 912 patients in the placebo group. Sixty-nine out of 971 (7.11%) patients developed PEP in the NSAID group in comparison to 143 out of 912 (15.68%) patients in the placebo group. The pooled RR of PEP incidence with prophylactic NSAID administration was 0.43 (95%CI: 0.33-0.56), which demonstrates that NSAID administration after ERCP significantly reduced the incidence of PEP when compared to the placebo group (P < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis was performed and revealed that the presence (NSAID group) or absence (placebo group) of NSAIDs had no significant effect on the development of moderate to severe pancreatitis (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.52-1.18). Moreover, the administration of NSAIDs as a rectal suppository (RR = 0.35, 95%CI: 0.26-0.48; P < 0.0001) was more effective than oral administration (RR = 0.97, 95%CI: 0.53-1.80) or through infusion (RR = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.12-1.54).CONCLUSION: NSAIDs effectively reduce the incidence of PEP but not of moderate to severe pancreatitis.     

Need for pancreatic stenting after sphincterotomy in patients with difficult cannulation

AIM: To investigate the need for pancreatic stenting after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.METHODS: Between April 2008 and August 2013, 2136 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedures. Among them, 55 patients with difficult biliary cannulation who underwent EST after bile duct cannulation using the pancreatic duct guidewire placement method (P-GW) were divided into two groups: a stent group (n = 24; pancreatic stent placed) and a no-stent group (n = 31; no pancreatic stenting). We retrospectively compared the two groups to examine the need for pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in patients undergoing EST after biliary cannulation by P-GW.RESULTS: No differences in patient characteristics or endoscopic procedures were observed between the two groups. The incidence of PEP was 4.2% (1/24) and 29.0% (9/31) in the Stent and no-stent groups, respectively, with the no-stent group having a significantly higher incidence (P = 0.031). The PEP severity was mild for all the patients in the stent group. In contrast, 8 had mild PEP and 1 had moderate PEP in the no-stent group. The mean serum amylase levels (means ± SD) 3 h after ERCP (183.1 ± 136.7 vs 463.6 ± 510.4 IU/L, P = 0.006) and on the day after ERCP (209.5 ± 208.7 vs 684.4 ± 759.3 IU/L, P = 0.002) were significantly higher in the no-stent group. A multivariate analysis identified the absence of pancreatic stenting (P = 0.045; odds ratio, 9.7; 95%CI: 1.1-90) as a significant risk factor for PEP.CONCLUSION: In patients with difficult cannulation in whom the bile duct is cannulated using P-GW, a pancreatic stent should be placed even if EST has been performed.     

Effect of precut sphincterotomy on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM:To conduct a systemic review and meta-analysis to investigate the role of early precut technique.Multiple randomized controlled trails(RCTs)have reported conflicting results of the early precut sphincterotomy.METHODS:MEDLINE/PubMed,EMBASE,Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews,and recent abstracts from major conference proceedings were searched(June 2013).Randomized and non-randomized studies comparing early precut technique with prolonged standard methods were included.Pooled estimates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP)pancreatitis(PEP),cannulation and adverse events were analyzed by using odds ratio(OR).Random and fixed effects models were used as appropriate.Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots.Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by calculating I2 measure of inconsistency.RESULTS:Seven randomized and seven non-randomized trials met inclusion criteria.Meta-analysis of RCTs showed a decrease trend for PEP with early precut sphincterotomy but was not statistically significant(OR=0.58;95%CI:0.32-1.05;P=0.07).No heterogeneity was noted among the studies with I2 of 0%.CONCLUSION:Early precut technique for common bile duct cannulation decreases the trend of post-ERCP pancreatitis.     

Effects of Medications on Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Background and Aims: Drug-induced pancreatitis accounts for about 2% of acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study is to determine whether propofol and other medications are associated with increased risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at a single tertiary care hospital. All patients who underwent ERCP from 2001 to 2004 were included. Diagnosis of acute post-ERCP pancreatitis was based on a consensus definition. Results: A total of 506 patients underwent ERCP. The total incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 7.1%. There was no significant difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis between patients who received propofol compared to patients who received midazolam and fentanyl (9.0 vs. 5.9%, p = 0.18). Patients receiving an angiotensin receptor blocker were approximately 4 times more likely to develop post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 4.1, 95% CI 1.6–10.9). Patients younger than 65 years and smokers also had higher risk of developing acute post-ERCP pancreatitis than those who were older than 65 years (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 1.7–9.1) and non-smokers (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.3–6.2). Conclusions: Propofol is a safe sedative drug for ERCP without additional risk of developing acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. Use of angiotensin receptor blockers, smoking and younger age are independent risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.     

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

Background and aim

Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. Previous meta-analyses show that prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement after ERCP is beneficial for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results of these meta-analyses are controversial due to the limited sample size of the eligible studies, in which six additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not included. Our aim is, therefore, to update the current meta-analyses regarding PS placement for prevention of PEP.

Methods

We conducted a meta-analysis to identify RCTs comparing PS placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP.

Results

Fourteen studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Of the 1,541 patients, 760 patients received a PS and 781 patients were allocated to the control group. PS placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29–0.53; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis stratified according to the severity of PEP showed that a PS was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.32–0.62; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.26; 95 %CI 0.09–0.76; P = 0.01). In addition, subgroup analysis performed according to patient selection demonstrated that PS placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that PS placement prevented PEP after ERCP as compared with no PS placement. We therefore recommend PS placement after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.     

Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

Background & Aims: Patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction are at high risk of developing pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Impaired pancreatic drainage caused by pancreatic sphincter hypertension is the likely explanation for this increased risk. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine if ductal drainage with pancreatic stenting protects against pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension. Methods: Eligible patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension were randomized to groups with pancreatic duct stents (n = 41) or no stents (n = 39) after biliary sphincterotomy. The primary measured outcome was pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Results: Pancreatic stenting significantly decreased the risk of pancreatitis from 26% to 7% (10 of 39 in the no stent group and 3 of 41 in the stent group; P = 0.03). Only 1 patient in the stent group developed pancreatitis after sphincterotomy, and 2 others developed pancreatitis at the time of stent extraction. Patients in the no stent group were 10 times more likely to develop pancreatitis immediately after sphincterotomy than those in the stent group (relative risk, 10.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–78.3). Conclusions: Pancreatic duct stenting protects significantly against post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic sphincter hypertension undergoing biliary sphincterotomy. Stenting of the pancreatic duct should be strongly considered after biliary sphincterotomy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; pancreatic sphincter of Oddi manometry identifies which high-risk patients may benefit from pancreatic stenting.GASTROENTEROLOGY 1998;115:1518-1524     

Early precut sphincterotomy and the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related complications: An updated meta-analysis

AIM: To study the cannulation and complication rates of early pre-cut sphincterotomy vs persistent attempts at cannulation by standard approach.METHODS: Systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published up to February 2013. The main outcome measurements were cannulation rates and postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) complications. A comprehensive systematic search of the Cochrane library, PubMed, Google scholar, Scopus, National Institutes of Health, meta-register of controlled trials and published proceedings from major Gastroenterology journals and meetings until February 2013 was conducted using keywords. All Prospective randomized controlled trials(RCT) studies whichmet our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Prospective non-randomized studies and retrospective studies were excluded from our meta-analysis. The main outcomes of interest were post-ERCP pancreatitis, overall complication rates including cholangitis, ERCPrelated bleeding, perforation and cannulation success rates. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 1039 patients were included in the meta-analysis based on selection criteria. The overall cannulation rate was 90% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 86.3% in the persistent attempts group(OR = 1.98; 95%CI: 0.70-5.65). The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis(PEP) was not different between the two groups(3.9% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 6.1% in the persistent attempts group, OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.32-1.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for overall complication rate including PEP, cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation(6.2% vs 6.9%, OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.51-1.41). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that precut sphincterotomy and persistent attempts at cannulation are comparable in terms of overall complication rates. Early pre-cut implementation does not increase PEP complications.     

经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术后急性胰腺炎与高淀粉酶血症对比观察

目的 比较经内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)后急性胰腺炎(PEP)与高淀粉酶血症(PEHA)患者的临床特点及影响因素,为预防病情进展提供依据。 方法 选取武汉大学人民医院2017年1月-2019年8月住院行ERCP的患者117例,所有患者术前均预防性使用双氯芬酸钠栓塞肛。术后发生PEHA组77例,PEP组40例,比较2组患者临床特点及影响因素。符合正态分布的计量资料2组间比较采用t检验;不符合正态分布的计量资料2组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验;计数资料2组间比较采用χ2检验;采用多因素logistic回归分析PEP的独立影响因素。结果 术前ALP(Z=-2.518,P=0.012)、GGT(Z=-2.313,P=0.021)、TBil(Z=-2.978,P=0.003)、DBil(Z=-3.069,P=0.002)水平及术中是否行导丝进入胰管检查(χ2=4.176,P=0.041)在两组之间差异显著。进一步logistic回归分析结果显示,导丝进入胰管次数≥3次[优势比(OR)=2.469,95%可信区间(95%CI): 1.199~5.188,P=0.047]、ALP<125 U/L(OR=5.499,95%CI: 1.452~18.830,P=0.012)、TBil<22 μmol/L(OR=4.249,95%CI: 1.023~17.648,P=0.046)是影响PEP发生的独立危险因素。结论 即使预防性使用双氯芬酸钠栓剂,术前ALP、TBil水平正常及术中导丝多次进入胰管的患者更易发生PEP,需引起手术医师警惕。根据病情,术前及术后采取早期干预措施可能减少PEHA向PEP进展,减少中重度PEP的发生,改善预后。     

胰管支架预防高危ERCP术后胰腺炎的临床分析

目的 观察胰管支架置人预防高危患者内镜逆行胰胆管造影（ERCP）术后胰腺炎及高淀粉酶血症的效果.方法 将确定有ERCP指征并符合纳入标准的72例高危患者按照随机数字表法分为胰管支架组和对照组,每组36例.比较两组术后3h、24 h血清淀粉酶水平及高淀粉酶血症、急性胰腺炎、重症胰腺炎的发生率.结果 胰管支架组术后3h和术后24 h血淀粉酶值分别为（128.68±173.35） U/L和（92.41±88.44） U/L,均低于对照组（432.37 ±515.20） U/L和（465.89±736.54） U/L,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;胰管支架组术后高淀粉酶血症、急性胰腺炎、重症胰腺炎的发生率分别为5.6％、2.8％、0,对照组为22.2％、16.7％、11.1％,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 胰管支架置入能明显降低高危患者ERCP术后高淀粉酶血症、急性胰腺炎及重症胰腺炎的发生率.     

Indomethacin may reduce the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis after ERCP

OBJECTIVES: Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Many medications have been used to prevent this complication. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of rectally administered indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. METHODS: During 18 months, all eligible patients who underwent ERCP were enrolled in this study. In a double-blind randomized trial, patients received a suppository containing indomethacin, 100 mg, or an inert placebo immediately before ERCP. Serum amylase levels and clinically pertinent evaluations were measured in all patients after ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients entered the trial, of which half received indomethacin. Twenty-two patients developed pancreatitis; seven cases in the indomethacin group and 15 in the placebo group (P=0.06). Pancreatic duct injection (OR=3.0, 95% CI: 1.3-7.4), pancreatic duct cannulation more than once (OR=4.2, 95% CI: 1.7-10.0), and age less than 60 yr (OR=2.7, 95% CI: 1.0-7.1) were shown to be significant risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. In patients who underwent pancreatography with or without cholangiography, the risk of pancreatitis was significantly lower in the indomethacin group compared with the control group (P=0.01, RRR=88%, ARR=0.16, NNT=6). Moderate to severe pancreatitis was significantly higher in the placebo group (P= 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: This trial shows that rectal indomethacin given immediately before ERCP can reduce the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.     

Risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic biliary drainage

Background:

Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication to occur after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It is often associated with additional diagnostic modalities and/or treatment of obstructive jaundice. The aim of this study was to determine the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis associated with pancreaticobiliary examination and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD).

Methods:

A total of 740 consecutive ERCP procedures performed in 477 patients were analysed for the occurrence of pancreatitis. These included 470 EBD procedures and 167 procedures to further evaluate the pancreaticobiliary tract using brush cytology and/or biopsy, intraductal ultrasound and/or peroral cholangioscopy or peroral pancreatoscopy. The occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was analysed retrospectively.

Results:

The overall incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 3.9% (29 of 740 procedures). The risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis were: being female (6.5%; odds ratio [OR] 2.5, P= 0.02); first EBD procedure without endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) (6.9%; OR 3.0, P= 0.003), and performing additional diagnostic procedures on the pancreatobiliary duct (9.6%; OR 4.6, P < 0.0001). Pancreatitis after subsequent draining procedures was rare (0.4%; OR for first-time drainage 16.6, P= 0.0003). Furthermore, pancreatitis was not recognized in 59 patients who underwent ES. Seven patients with post-EBD pancreatitis were treated with additional ES.

Conclusions:

Invasive diagnostic examinations of the pancreaticobiliary duct and first-time perampullary biliary drainage without ES were high-risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopic sphincterotomy may be of use to prevent post-EBD pancreatitis.     

Dietary approaches following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A survey of selected endoscopists

AIM: To describe the dietary recommendations of experienced endoscopists for patients who have undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and the factors that influence these recommendations.METHODS: Selected U.S. endoscopists with ERCP experience were surveyed by e-mail. A questionnaire with three hypothetical ERCP cases of patients at low, medium and high risk for development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was shown. For each scenario, respondents were asked to recommend a post-procedure diet and time to first oral intake. Respondents were also asked about the effect of various clinical factors on their recommendations, including risk of PEP.RESULTS: 97/187 selected ASGE members (51.9%) responded. When risk of PEP was either low, medium or high, 53%, 88% and 96% recommended a diet of clear liquids/NPO respectively, and 2%, 5% and 18% recommended delaying first oral intake until the following day. About 88% of respondents gave the same type of diet to patients at high as those with moderate-risk of PEP (P = 0.04). However, 37% and 43% of respondents gave different types of diet to patients at low vs moderate-risk and low-risk vs high-risk of PEP respectively (P < 0.001). No statistically significant associations were found regarding the effect of other clinical factors or respondent demographics.CONCLUSION: Most experienced endoscopists limit diet to NPO/clear liquids after ERCP for patients at high or moderate risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. About half allow a low-fat or regular diet in patients at low risk.     

Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety profile of pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).METHODS: We performed a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials of prophylactic PD stent placement after ERCP. RevMan 5 software provided by Cochrane was used for the heterogeneity and efficacy analyses, and a meta-analysis was performed for the data that showed homogeneity. Categorical data are presented as relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and measurement data are presented as weighted mean differences and 95%CIs.RESULTS: The incidence rates of severe pancreatitis, operation failure, complications and patient pain severity were analyzed. Data on pancreatitis incidence were reported in 14 of 15 trials. There was no significant heterogeneity between the trials (I² = 0%, P = 0.93). In the stent group, 49 of the 1233 patients suffered from PEP, compared to 133 of the 1277 patients in the no-stent group. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that it may be possible to prevent PEP by placing a PD stent.CONCLUSION: PD stent placement can reduce postoperative hyperamylasemia and might be an effective and safe option to prevent PEP if the operation indications are well controlled.     

Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Pancreatic stenting is an effective method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in high-risk patients. This retrospective study evaluated the impact of modified stent characteristics on the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, spontaneous stent dislodgment, and stent-related sequelae. METHODS: A total of 2283 patients underwent 2447 ERCPs over a 6-year period with placement of 3-4F diameter, unflanged pancreatic stents. The indication for stenting was pancreatitis prophylaxis predominantly in suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), pancreas divisum therapy, and precut sphincterotomy. An abdominal radiograph was obtained 10-14 days later to assess spontaneous stent passage. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined according to established criteria. A total of 479 patients underwent repeat ERCPs after an initial ERCP with pancreatic stent placement. The prestenting pancreatogram was then compared with follow-up studies. RESULTS: The pancreatitis rate with 3F, 4F, 5F, and 6F stents was 7.5%, 10.6%, 9.8%, and 14.6%, respectively (3F vs. 4F, 5F, 6F: P = 0.047). Spontaneous stent dislodgment was 86%, 73%, 67%, and 65%, respectively (3F vs. 4F, 5F, 6F: P < 0.0001). The frequency of ductal changes was 24% in patients with 3-4F stents compared with 80% with 5-6F stents. Ductal perforation from the stents occurred in 3 patients (0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Small diameter (3-4F), unflanged pancreatic stents are more effective than the traditionally used stents (5-6F) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Stent-induced ductal changes and the need for endoscopic removal are also significantly less with 3-4F stents. The 3F stent appears to be superior in all aspects studied. Additional studies are needed to define the ideal method to eliminate post-ERCP pancreatitis.     

Suppository naproxen reduces incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Randomized controlled trial

AIM: To determine the efficacy of rectally administered naproxen for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) pancreatitis(PEP).METHODS: This double-blind randomized control trial conducted from January 2013 to April 2014 at the Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center in Rasht, Iran. A total of 324 patients were selected from candidates for diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP by using the simple sampling method. Patients received a single dose of Naproxen(500 mg; n = 162) or a placebo(n = 162) per rectum immediately before ERCP. The overall incidence of PEP, incidence of mild to severe PEP, serum amylase levels and adverse effects were measured. The primary outcome measure was the development of pancreatitis onset of pain in the upper abdomen and elevation of the serum amylase level to 3 × the upper normal limit(60-100 IU/L) within 24 h after ERCP. The severity of PEP was classified according to the duration of therapeutic intervention for PEP: mild, 2-3 d; moderate 4-10 d; and severe, 10 d and/or necessitated surgical or intensive treatment, or contributed to death.RESULTS:PEP occurred in 12 %(40/324) o f participants, and was significantly more frequent in the placebo group compared to the naproxen group(P 0.01). Of the participants, 25.9%(84/324) developed hyperamylasemia within 2 h of procedure completion, among whom only 35 cases belonged to the naproxen group(P 0.01). The incidence of PEP was significantly higher in female sex, in patients receiving pancreatic duct injection, more than 3 times pancreatic duct cannulations, and ERCP duration more than 40 min(P s 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups regarding the procedures or factors that might increase the risk of PEP, sphincterotomy, precut requirement, biliary duct injection and number of pancreatic duct cannulations. In the subgroup of patients with pancreatic duct injection, the rate of pancreatitis in the naproxen group was significantly lower than that in the placebo(6 patients vs 23 patients, P 0.01, RRR = 12%, AR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.2-0.6). Naproxen reduced the PEP in patients with ≥ 3 pancreatic cannulations(P 0.01, RRR = 25%, AR = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1-0.4) and an ERCP duration 40 min(P 0.01, RRR = 20%, AR = 0.9, 95%CI: 0.4-1.2).CONCLUSION: Single dose of suppository naproxen administered immediately before ERCP reduces the incidence of PEP.     

Low-dose heparin in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

One of the most frequent and serious complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the preventive effect of low-dose heparin (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin) on post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and its side-effects by a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Searching PubMed and EMBASE, up to August 2011, two independent reviewers systematically identified prospective clinical trials detecting the effect of prophylactic low-dose heparin on the incidence of PEP, severe PEP, and post-ERCP hemorrhage complications. Four clinical trials fulfilled our selection criteria, with three prospective randomized and one nonrandomized. A meta-analysis of these clinical trials was then performed. A total of 1438 patients were included. Meta-analysis of these trials indicated that there was no significant association between the use of heparin and the reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44-1.03, P=0.07] and severe PEP (RR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.15-2.60, P=0.51). However, low-dose heparin did not increase the incidence of post-ERCP hemorrhage complications (RR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.34-2.03, P=0.69). This meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit of prophylactic heparin use for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. More multicenter trials involving a larger number of patients are needed to show a possible prevention effect of PEP from heparin and its related compounds.     

Pharmacologic treatment can prevent pancreatic injury after ERCP: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The identification of therapeutic agents that can prevent the pancreatic injury after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is of considerable importance. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis including 28 clinical trials on the use of somatostatin (12 studies), octreotide (10 studies), and gabexate mesilate (6 studies) after ERCP. Outcome measures evaluated were the incidence of acute pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and pancreatic pain. Three analyses were run separately: for all available studies, for randomized trials only, and for only those studies published as complete reports. RESULTS: When all available studies were analyzed, somatostatin and gabexate mesilate were significantly associated with improvements in all three outcomes. Odds ratios (OR) for gabexate mesilate were 0.27 (95% CI [0.13, 0. 57], p = 0.001) for acute pancreatitis, 0.66 (95% CI [0.48, -0.89], p = 0.007) for hyperamylasemia, and 0.33 (95% CI [0.18, 0.58], p = 0. 0005) for post-procedural pain. Somatostatin reduced acute pancreatitis (OR 0.38: 95% CI [0.22, 0.65], p < 0.001), pain (OR 0. 24: 95% CI [0.14, 0.42], p < 0.001), and hyperamylasemia (OR 0.65: 95% CI [0.48, 0.90], p = 0.008). Octreotide was associated only with a reduced risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (OR 0.51: 95% CI [0.31, 0.83], p = 0.007) but had no effect on acute pancreatitis and pain. The statistical significance of data did not change after analyzing randomized trials only or studies published as complete reports. For each considered outcome, the publication bias assessment and the number of patients that need to be treated to prevent one adverse effect were, respectively, higher and lower for somatostatin than for gabexate mesilate. CONCLUSIONS: The pancreatic injury after ERCP can be prevented with the administration of either somatostatin or gabexate mesilate, but the former agent is more cost-effective. Additional studies comparing the efficacy of short-term infusion of somatostatin versus gabexate mesilate in patients at high risk for post-ERCP complications seem warranted.