Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Terapeutica CPRE Pancreatitis
Terapeutica CPRE Pancreatitis
Background: It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).
Objective: To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and
the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk.
Design: Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data.
Setting: University of Michigan and Indiana University.
Patients: A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP.
Interventions: Pancreatic stent placement.
Main Outcome Measurements: Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS,
patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed
a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To dene the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort.
Results: The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, signicantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent
attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with
PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP.
Limitations: Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured.
Conclusion: FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These ndings highlight the importance of adequate training and prociency before endoscopists
attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases. (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:150-5.)
(footnotes appear on last page of article)
www.giejournal.org
Choksi et al
Rectal indomethacin
www.giejournal.org
METHODS
Rectal indomethacin
Choksi et al
RESULTS
TABLE 1. Major and minor study inclusion criteria
used to calculate post-ERCP pancreatitis risk score
Major criteria
Minor criteria
Clinical suspicion of
sphincter of Oddi
dysfunction
History of post-ERCP
pancreatitis
History of recurrent
pancreatitis
Pancreatic sphincterotomy
Precut (access)
sphincterotomy
O8 cannulation attempts
R3 pancreatic injections,
with at least 1 injection
to the tail
Pancreatic acinarization
Pancreatic brush cytology
Pneumatic dilation of
intact biliary sphincter
Ampullectomy
Choksi et al
Rectal indomethacin
Figure 1. Risk of PEP among patients with FPS compared with no attempt and successful PSP in the placebo group (left panel ) and indomethacin
group (right panel ). PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis; PSP, pancreatic stent placement; FPS, failed pancreatic stent placement.
DISCUSSION
This secondary analysis of RCT data suggests that patients who experienced attempted but failed PSP were
at signicantly increased risk for PEP compared with patients who underwent successful stent placement and
those in whom stent placement was not attempted. Prophylactic administration of rectal indomethacin appears
to signicantly attenuate this risk. Exploratory risk factor
analysis suggests that a history of recurrent pancreatitis
and difcult cannulation are clinical factors associated
with FPS.
In this RCT, the PEP risk in patients who experienced
FPS but did not receive indomethacin was approximately
35%. Although this risk is not as high as previously reported
in a small, non-controlled series,9 it is certainly higher than
the rate of PEP observed among patients who underwent
successful stent placement in our RCT and in numerous
other RCTs evaluating the protective effect of PSP,
wherein the rate of PEP in patients who underwent successful stent placement ranged from 2% to 15%.6,7,12-15
The risk of PEP associated with FPS we observed
also appears to exceed the risk seen in the control arms
of previously published RCTs involving PSP, wherein stent
placement was not attempted and pancreatitis occurred in
13% to 29% of cases.6,7,12-15 In our RCT, the rate of PEP was
considerably (3-fold) higher in the FPS group than in the
no attempt group, although this observation is confounded
by the fact that the decision to place a pancreatic stent in
this RCT was deferred to the discretion of the endoscopist.
Patients in whom stent placement was not attempted were
likely to be at lower risk for PEP because they elicited less
concern on the part of the endoscopist.16 Nevertheless, a
logistic regression model adjusting for this confounding
www.giejournal.org
Rectal indomethacin
Choksi et al
endoscopist intent. Although we believe these assumptions are reasonable, FPS may have been under-captured
(when stent attempt was not mentioned) or misclassied
(if the description of the procedure was misinterpreted
by the reviewer), potentially biasing study results. Second,
the event rate in this study was small, reducing the precision in our estimates of effect and leading to probable
regression model overtting and possible missed associations because of low statistical power. Nevertheless, this
is the largest and most methodologically rigorous analysis
of the phenomenon of FPS, and it provides important, clinically relevant data in this area. To shed additional light on
PSP and the phenomenon of FPS, researchers in future
RCTs involving ERCP should prospectively collect data on
the endoscopic instruments (catheters, wires, and stents)
used for PSP; underlying pancreatic duct anatomy; the
duration, technical difculty, effort, and personnel involved
in the attempt; and the reasons for failure.
In summary, attempted but failed pancreatic stent placement appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which
is attenuated by prophylactic rectal indomethacin administration. These ndings highlight the importance of
adequate training and prociency for the endoscopist
before PSP is attempted and routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases. Given the risks and costs
of PSP, identifying prophylactic strategies that minimize
the need for pancreatic stenting may be of substantial clinical and economic value.
www.giejournal.org
REFERENCES
1. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic
review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:275-82.
2. Mazaki T, Masuda H, Takayama T. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2010;42:842-53.
3. Brackbill S, Young S, Schoenfeld P, et al. A survey of physician practices
on prophylactic pancreatic stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:45-52.
4. Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J, et al. European Society of
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: prophylaxis of postERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2010;42:503-15.
5. Das A, Singh P, Sivak MV Jr, et al. Pancreatic-stent placement for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:960-8.
6. Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, et al. Pancreatic stenting
prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with
sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1518-24.
7. Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF, et al. Does a pancreatic duct stent
prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study.
Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:291-4.
8. Zolotarevsky E, Fehmi SM, Anderson MA, et al. Prophylactic 5-Fr
pancreatic duct stents are superior to 3-Fr stents: a randomized
controlled trial. Endoscopy 2011;43:325-30.
9. Freeman ML, Overby C, Qi D. Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences
of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success.
Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:8-14.
10. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, et al. A randomized trial of
rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med
2012;366:1414-22.
Choksi et al
Rectal indomethacin
www.giejournal.org