JHSM
Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine

Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine (JHSM) is an unbiased, peer-reviewed, and open access international medical journal. The Journal publishes interesting clinical and experimental research conducted in all fields of medicine, interesting case reports, and clinical images, invited reviews, editorials, letters, comments, and related knowledge.

ISSN: Active
eISSN: 2636-8579
Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License.
EndNote Style

Submit Manuscript

Index
Original Article
Evaluation of pancreatic stent and/or suppository indomethacin efficacy in post ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis: a single center experience
Abstract
Aims: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a serious complication of ERCP. In this study, we aimed to compare the use of rectal indomethacin, pancreatic stenting or both techniques for prevention of PEP. Material and
Methods: Patients who underwent ERCP for the first time due to choledocholithiasis between January 2022 and June 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical findings, demographics, laboratory records, endoscopic intervention characteristics, whether rectal indomethacin was applied before the procedure, whether pancreatic stent was placed or not were evaluated.
Results: A total of 367 patients who underwent ERCP for the first time were included in the study. The mean age was 61 (28-92) years and 53.4% were female. In 124 (33.8%) patients, involuntary guide-wire insertion into the pancreatic duct occurred during canulation. Pancreatic stent was placed in 82 (22.3%) of the patients. Rectal indomethacin was administered to 288 patients (78.5%), while indomethacin could not be administered in 79 patients (21.5%), because they did not give consent. When patients with involuntarily pancreatic canulation were evaluated, the rate of PEP was 3.6% in the stented group, while it was 15.3% in the stent-free group (p<0001). The incidence of PEP was 20.3% in 79 patients who could not be administered rectal indomethacin, while this rate was 3.1% in those who received rectal indomethacin (p<0001).
Conclusion: The first and most important way to prevent PEP is to avoid unnecessary ERCPs. Rectal indomethacin administration reduces the risk of PEP. All patients with involuntary wires in the pancreatic duct, should be evaluated for pancreatic stent placement.

Keywords : Post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin, pancreatic stent, prophylaxis

Download Article


1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Barritt AS, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal,liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology,2015: 149; 1731-41.
2. Torvik A, Hoivik B. Gallstones in an autopsy series. Incidence,complications, and correlations with carcinoma of the gallbladder.Acta Chir Scand 1960; 120: 168.
3. Zahor A, Sternby NH, Kagan A, et al. Frequency of cholelithiasisin Prague and Malm&ouml;. An autopsy study. Scand J Gastroenterol1974; 9: 3.
4. Brett M, Barker DJ. The world distribution of gallstones. Int JEpidemiol 1976; 5: 335.
5. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, et al. A prospective study ofcommon bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopiccholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited.Ann Surg 2004; 239: 28.
6. Hunter JG. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile ductexploration. Am J Surg 1992; 163: 53.
7. Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P, et al. Prospective controlledstudy of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrogradecholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileductlithiasis. Lancet 1996; 347: 75.
8. Gurusamy KS, Giljaca V, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic retrogradecholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiographyfor diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev 2015: CD010339.
9. Siiki A, Tamminen A, Tomminen T, et al. ERCP procedures ina Finnish community hospital: a retrospective analysis of 1207cases. Scand J Surg 2012; 101: 45.
10. Kapral C, M&uuml;hlberger A, Wewalka F, et al. Quality assessmentof endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of arunning nationwide Austrian benchmarking project after 5 yearsof implementation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1447.
11. Kienbauer M, Duller C, Gschwantler M, et al. Austrianbenchmarking project for ERCP: a 10-year report. Z Gastroenterol2018; 56: 1227.
12. Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kval&oslash;y JT, et al. Patterns and predictivefactors of complications after endoscopic retrogradecholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 373.
13. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates ofpost-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospectivestudies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781.
14. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCP-relatedadverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy(ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 127.
15. Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, et al. Incidence, severity, andmortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by usingrandomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 143.
16. Morales SJ, Sampath K, Gardner TB. A Review of Prevention ofPost-ERCP Pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2018; 14:286.
17. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, ChandrasekharaV, Khashab MA, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP.Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 32.
18. Phillip V, Pukitis A, Epstein A, et al. Pancreatic stenting toprevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial.Endoscopy Int Open 2013; 7: 860-8.
19. Pekg&ouml;z M. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographypancreatitis: A systematic review for prevention and treatment.World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 4019-42.
20. Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, et. al. Risk factors for pancreatitisfollowing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: ameta-analysis. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 830-4.
21. Harewood GC, Pochron NL, Gostout CJ. Prospective,randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stentplacement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2005; 62: 367-70.
22. D&ouml;br&ouml;nte Z, Toldy E, M&aacute;rk L, Sarang K, Lakner L. Az indometacinszerepe az endoszk&oacute;pos retrogr&aacute;d cholangiopancreatographi&aacute;tk&ouml;veto akut pancreatitis prevenci&oacute;j&aacute;ban [Effects of rectalindomethacin in the prevention of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis].Orvosi Hetilap 2012; 153: 990-6.
23. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, et. al. US. Cooperativefor Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE) a randomizedtrial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.The New Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1414-22.
24. Yaghoobi M, Rolland S, Waschke KA, et. al. Meta-analysis: rectalindomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Alimentary Pharmacol Therapeutics 2003; 38: 995-1001.
Article available in :
Volume 6, Issue 2, 2023
Page : 374-379
https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1197804
Article Information
Received : 01 Kas 2022
Accepted : 08 Şub 2023
Published : 27 Mar 2023
Corresponding Author :

Çağdaş Erdoğan: Ankara City Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, Ankara, Turkey

[email protected]
Citation : Erdoğan Ç, Güven İE, Başpınar B, Kılıç ZMY. Evaluation of pancreatic stent and/or suppository indomethacin efficacy in post ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis: a single center experience. J Health Sci Med 2023; 6(2): 374-379.

Read: 169
Cited: 0
Download : 152
_Footer