Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cahyadi O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9502657 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: Prevention, Diagnosis and Management.
Cahyadi Oscar O Tehami Nadeem N de-Madaria Enrique E Siau Keith K
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 20220912 9
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate of 2-10%, which could be as high as 30-50% in high-risk cases. PEP is severe in up to 5% of cases, with potential for life-threatening complications, including multi-organ failure, peripancreatic fluid collections, and death in up to 1% of cases. The risk of PEP is potentially predictable and may be modified with pharmacological measures and endoscopist technique. This review covers the definition, ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveIn 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.DesignIn summer 2012, an anonymous online 15-item survey was emailed to 373 UK consultant gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons and radiologists identified to perform ERCP.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsDespite 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.
| S-EPMC3977499 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aimsRecently the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy delivered guidelines on the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) and on the papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are no data concerning current practices in Portugal. The aim of this study was to capture practice patterns of Portuguese pancreaticobiliary endoscopists with special interest in the prevention of PEP and cannulation techniques.MethodsA written survey was distributed to all pancreaticobiliary endoscopists attending the first Portuguese meeting dedicated to ERCP in November 2016. The main outcome measures were: technique used for standard biliary cannulation, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in PEP, attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting after using pancreatic guidewire (PGW)-assisted biliary cannulation in patients where biliary cannulation was difficult, and use of precut as the first rescue technique when biliary cannulation was difficult.ResultsCompleted surveys were collected from 28 of the 32 pancreatobiliary endoscopists attending the meeting (answer rate 87.5%). Biliary cannulation was performed using a guidewire access technique by the majority (77%), usually with a sphincterotome. When cannulation was unsuccessful, precut was the first choice for 70%. NSAIDs were administered routinely for PEP by only 54%; PGW-assisted biliary cannulation was the first choice after failed standard cannulation for a minority of them, and only 27% reported to routinely attempt insertion of a pancreatic stent. High-volume endoscopists (> 150/year) tended to use NSAIDs and to insert a stent in PGW-assisted cannulation less often than low-volume-endoscopists (50 vs. 83.3%, p < 0.01, and 40 vs. 100%, p < 0.01, respectively). Precut was started without prior formal training by more than half of the endoscopists.ConclusionsThere is a pronounced discrepancy between evidence-based guidelines and current clinical practice. This discrepancy is more pronounced in PEP prophylaxis, especially among high-volume endoscopists. Some advanced techniques in ERCP are initiated unsupervised, without any previous formal training.Key messageThere is a significant gap between guidelines and routine clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6341342 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8830279 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNafamostat mesilate decreases the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, no studies have administered nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. So we investigated if the infusion of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP can affect the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients.MethodsIn a tertiary hospital, 350 high-risk patients of PEP were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 201 patients received nafamostat mesilate after ERCP. Patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP were collected. We performed a propensity score matching to adjust for the significant different baseline characteristics. The incidence and severity of PEP were evaluated according to the infusion of nafamostat mesilate. The risk factors of PEP were also analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.ResultsThe baseline characteristics were not different after the matching. The PEP rate (17.4% vs. 10.3%, P = 0.141) was insignificant. Among the PEP patients, mild PEP was significantly higher in the nafamostat mesilate group (85.7% vs. 45.5%, P = 0.021). Only one patient in the nafamostat mesilate group developed severe PEP. Although young age (odds ratio [OR] 3.60, 95% CI 1.09-11.85, P = 0.035) was a risk factor, nafamostat mesilate (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% CI 0.09-0.98, P = 0.047) was a protective factor for moderate to severe PEP.ConclusionsThe administration of nafamostat mesilate after ERCP in high-risk patients was not effective in preventing PEP, but may attenuate the severity of PEP.
| S-EPMC9153157 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims While several interventions may decrease risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, it remains unclear whether one strategy is superior to others. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pharmacologic and endoscopic interventions to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis among high-risk patients. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database through May 2017. Interventions included: rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aggressive hydration with lactated ringer's (LR) solution, and pancreatic stent placement compared to placebo. Only studies with patients at high-risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed and relative ranking of treatments was assessed using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities. Results We identified 29 trials, comprising 7,862 participants comparing four preventive strategies. On network meta-analysis, compared with placebo, rectal NSAIDs (B = - 0.69, 95 % CI [-1.18; - 0.21]), pancreatic stent (B = - 1.25, 95 % CI [-1.81 to -0.69]), LR (B = - 0.67, 95 % CI [-1.20 to -0.13]), and combination of LR plus rectal NSAIDs (B = - 1.58; 95 % CI [-3.0 to -0.17]), were all associated with a reduced risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreatic stent placement had the highest SUCRA probability (0.81, 95 % CI [0.83 to 0.80]) of being ranked the best prophylactic treatment. Conclusions Based on this network meta-analysis, pancreatic stent placement appears to be the most effective preventive strategy for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.
| S-EPMC6949176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveNon-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most studied chemoprophylaxis for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). While previous systematic reviews have shown NSAIDs reduce PEP, their impact on moderate to severe PEP (MSPEP) is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand the impact of NSAIDs on MSPEP among patients who developed PEP. We later surveyed physicians' understanding of that impact.DesignA systematic search for randomized trials using NSAIDs for PEP prevention was conducted. Pooled-prevalence and Odds-ratio of PEP, MSPEP were compared between treated vs. control groups. Analysis was performed using R software. Random-effects model was used for all variables. Physicians were surveyed via email before and after reviewing our results.Results7688 patients in 25 trials were included. PEP was significantly reduced to 0.598 (95%CI, 0.47-0.76) in the NSAIDs group. Overall burden of MSPEP was reduced among all patients undergoing ERCP: OR 0.59 (95%CI, 0.42-0.83). However, NSAIDs didn't affect the proportion of MSPEP among those who developed PEP (p = 0.658). Rectal Indomethacin and diclofenac reduced PEP but not MSPEP. Efficacy didn't vary by risk, timing of administration, or bias-risk. Survey revealed a change in the impression of the effect of NSAIDs on MSPEP after reviewing our results.ConclusionsRectal diclofenac or indomethacin before or after ERCP reduce the overall burden of MSPEP by reducing the pool of PEP from which it can arise. However, the proportion of MSPEP among patients who developed PEP is unaffected. Therefore, NSAIDs prevent initiation of PEP, but do not affect severity among those that develop PEP. Alternative modalities are needed to reduce MSPEP among patients who develop PEP.
| S-EPMC11298787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders leading to hospitalization and the most frequent complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Besides pharmaco-prophylaxis, pancreatic stenting has been demonstrated to protect from post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, it remains unclear which patients benefit from pancreatic stenting. We therefore hypothesized that in an unselected population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP increases risk of PEP and that this risk can be significantly reduced by pancreatic stenting. Patients and methods This study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at four European centers. A total of 167 patients undergoing first-time ERCP were enrolled in this trial. In the case of inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 5 French plastic pancreatic stent of various length or no routine prophylactic intervention for PEP. Results A total of 167 patients were included in the final analysis. Prophylactic stent insertion significantly reduced the rate of PEP during first-time ERCP (odds ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.19 - 0.98; P = 0.04). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of PEP by prophylactic stent insertion after inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct was 8.1 for the intention-to-treat population. Conclusion In an unselected patient population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP is associated with a high risk for PEP. This risk can be significantly reduced by prophylactic pancreatic stenting, which is a safe and feasible procedure.
| S-EPMC6609234 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPreliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights.ResultsA total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P=0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P=0.03).ConclusionsAmong patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.).
| S-EPMC3339271 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background & aimsRectal indomethacin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is given to prevent pancreatitis in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines recently recommended prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis. We performed a randomized controlled trail to investigate the efficacy of this approach.MethodsWe performed a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2013 through December 2014. Approximately 70% of the cohort were at average risk for PEP. Subjects were assigned randomly to groups given either a single 100-mg dose of rectal indomethacin (n = 223) or a placebo suppository (n = 226) during the procedure. The primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal pain, a lipase level more than 3-fold the upper limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights.ResultsThere were no differences between the groups in baseline clinical or procedural characteristics. Sixteen patients in the indomethacin group (7.2%) and 11 in the placebo group (4.9%) developed PEP (P = .33). Complications and the severity of PEP were similar between groups. Per a priori protocol guidelines, the study was stopped owing to futility.ConclusionsIn a randomized controlled study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT01774604.
| S-EPMC4808426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass, hypotension is a risk factor for developing acute pancreatitis. Hypotension in animal models can also induce pancreatitis. We sought to determine whether or not relative hypotension during ERCP is a risk factor for developing acute pancreatitis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A nested, case-control study reviewed all cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis resulting from ERCPs performed at this institution between May 1993 and May 1998. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as abdominal pain requiring hospitalisation and elevation of serum amylase or lipase more than four times the upper limit of normal 24 hours or more after ERCP. Non-invasive blood pressure measurements were recorded automatically at least every 5 min during ERCP. Hypotension was defined as any systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mmHg, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) <60 mmHg, or mean blood pressure (MBP) <80 mmHg. Controls were chosen randomly from ERCPs performed on the same or the nearest day as each index case. RESULTS: In total, 1854 ERCPs were reviewed from the study period.There were 96 cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis,giving an incidence of 5.2%. The average age of cases was 48 years, while that of controls was 55 years (p < 0.003).There were no differences between the groups regarding gender, ERCP findings, need for sphincterotomy nor acinar filling on the pancreatogram (acinarisation). At least one episode of hypotension was recorded in 32% of cases and 30% of controls (p = 0.75). There were no differences between cases and controls comparing mean pre- and intra-procedure SBP, DBP and MBPs, or lowest procedure SBP, DBP and MBP. DISCUSSION: Episodes of acute hypotension are common during ERCP but are not a risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis.
| S-EPMC1950279 | biostudies-other