Glyceryl trinitrate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and improve the rate of cannulation: a meta-analysis of prospective, randomized, controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Several clinical trials used glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) to prevent the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results were still controversial.Objective
To conduct a meta-analysis of published, full-length, randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of prophylactic GTN on the prevention of PEP, improve the rate of cannulation and the prevention of hyperamylasemia.Methods
Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Web of Knowledge databases, using keywords "post-ERCP" and "pancreatitis" and limited in randomized controlled trials.Results
Twelve RCTs involving 2649 patients were included. Eleven RCTs compared GTN with placebo for PEP prevention. Meta-analysis showed the overall incidence of PEP was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). Nevertheless, GTN administration did not decrease the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (RR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15). Subgroup analyses revealed that GTN administered by sublingual was more effective than transdermal and topical in reducing the incidence of PEP. Besides, the prophylactic effect of GTN was far more obvious in the group of high PEP incidence than in the group of low PEP incidence. Additionally, the incidence of hyperamylasemia was significantly reduced by GTN treatment (RR 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90). No differences of the successful cannulation rate of bile ducts (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06) attributable to GTN were observed.Conclusion
Prophylactic use of GTN reduced the overall incidence of PEP and hyperamylasemia. However, GTN was not helpful for the severity of PEP and the rate of cannulation.
SUBMITTER: Ding J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3787965 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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, epidemiology and risk factors for PEP, with a focus on the latest evidence-based medical and endoscopic strategies to prevent and manage PEP.
| S-EPMC9502657 | biostudies-literature
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:A Phase I, double-blind, randomized, crossover study in healthy males (N=106) was conducted between March 21, 2004, and May 17, 2004, to determine the magnitude and duration of the hemodynamic interaction of avanafil (a phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor for treating males with erectile dysfunction) when coadministered with glyceryl trinitrate (NTG) compared with sildenafil and placebo. Subjects received avanafil (200 mg), sildenafil (100 mg), and placebo (on separate days) via the oral route followed by NTG (0.4 mg) 12, 8, 4, 1, or 0.5 hours post-dose via the sublingual route. Blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) were assessed at defined intervals. Throughout the study (after administration of the study drug, and including the period after NTG administration), the effects of avanafil and sildenafil on BP and HR were significantly greatest overall, at the shortest (0.5-hour) time interval compared with placebo. By the 8- and 12-hour time intervals, no significant difference in BP or HR was observed for avanafil (8 and 12 hours) or sildenafil (12 hours) (p>0.05, compared with placebo). Compared with avanafil, sildenafil had a significantly greater effect when dosed 0.5 hours before NTG on standing HR (p=0.05); 1 hour before NTG on standing systolic blood pressure (SBP) (p<0.05), sitting SBP (p=0.01) and standing HR (p<0.01); and 12 hours before NTG on standing SBP (p=0.05). Throughout the study, symptomatic hypotension adverse events occurred in 27%, 29%, and 12%, and clinically significant reductions in standing SBP (?30 mmHg) occurred in 15%, 29%, and 12% of subjects dosed with avanafil, sildenafil, and placebo, respectively (overall treatment differences: p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively). These data show that avanafil and sildenafil have no significant effect on BP and HR if administered to healthy males ?8 hours (avanafil) or ?12 hours (sildenafil) before a sublingual dose of NTG. However, results may differ in populations with known vascular disease, especially those using other concurrent pharmacotherapy. These findings may be of interest to clinicians who treat patients with erectile dysfunction and who also have a cardiovascular condition. Of note, the applicability of these results in such patients may be limited because the enrollment comprised healthy, normal subjects.
| S-EPMC3884957 | 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: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
Project description:Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).In 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.A 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).Among 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:Rectal 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.We 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.There 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.In 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 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:OBJECTIVE:To produce a best evidence synthesis of the clinical effects of topical glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) in the treatment of tendinopathies. DESIGN:A systematic review of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of GTN in patients with tendinopathy. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL from database inception to January 2018. METHODS:We examined RCTs comparing the effects of topical GTN with either placebo or other treatments on tendinopathy. Overall quality of each eligible study was determined based on a combined assessment of internal validity, external validity and precision. The level of evidence for each assessed parameter was rated based on the system by van Tulder et al. RESULTS:A total of 10 eligible RCTs were identified including patients with tendinopathy of the rotator cuff (n=4), wrist extensors (n=3), Achilles (n=2) and patellar (n=1) tendons. For all tendinopathies, improvements in pain were significant when comparing GTN versus placebo in the short term (<8 weeks; poor evidence). Significant improvements in midterm outcomes for treatment with GTN versus placebo included the following: patient satisfaction (strong evidence); chances of being asymptomatic with activities of daily living (strong evidence); range of movement (moderate evidence); strength (moderate evidence); pain (at night and with activity; poor evidence) and local tenderness (poor evidence). Patients treated with topical GTN reported a higher incidence of headaches than those who received placebo (moderate evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Treatment of tendinopathies with topical GTN for up to 6 months appears to be superior to placebo and may therefore be a useful adjunct to the treating healthcare professions.
| S-EPMC6362607 | biostudies-literature