Dataset Information

UK wide survey on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

In 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.

Design

In summer 2012, an anonymous online 15-item survey was emailed to 373 UK consultant gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons and radiologists identified to perform ERCP.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

Despite 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.

SUBMITTER: Hanna MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3977499 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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.

Project description:Background and Aim:The risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are identified as patient- and procedure-related factors. However, the genetic contribution for PEP is still unclear. Recent data show that the polymorphisms of PRSS1-PRSS2 (rs10273639) and MORC4 (rs12688220) are associated with recurrent acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis. We aim to evaluate the association between these polymorphisms and post-ERCP pancreatitis in order to improve better prognosis and better care for these patients. Methods:This is a retrospective, case-control study which includes 49 cases and 97 controls that are age-, procedure-, and risk of PEP-matched with the cases in 1?:?2 fashion. The PEP was diagnosed and graded for severity according to the standard consensus, and the risk factors of PEP were identified according to the ESGE guideline. Polymorphisms at rs10273639 and rs12688220 were evaluated by TaqMan technique and were identified in 133 (40 cases and 93 controls) and 146 patients, respectively. Results:The demographic data between 2 groups are not significantly different. The genotype frequencies of PRSS1-PRSS2 (TT, TC, and CC) are 26, 13, and 1 vs. 67, 25, and 1 in cases and controls, respectively (p = 0.642). The genotype frequencies of MORC4 in female (TT, TC, and CC) are 8, 23, and 5 vs. 12, 26, and 21 in cases and controls, respectively (p = 0.071). The genotype frequencies of MORC4 in male (T and C) are 5 and 8 vs. 21 and 17 in cases and controls, respectively (p = 0.468). The allelic frequencies of MORC4 in combination of both genders (T, C) are 44 and 41 vs. 71 and 84 in cases and control, respectively (p = 0.431). In PEP cases, the allelic frequencies of PRSS1-PRSS2 (T and C) are 59 and 13 vs. 6 and 2 in mild and moderate/severe cases, respectively (p = 0.633). The allelic frequencies of MORC4 (T and C) are 38 and 39 vs. 4 and 4 in mild and moderate/severe cases, respectively (p = 0.972). Conclusion:Polymorphisms at PRSS1-PRSS2 and MORC4 are not associated with the risk or severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.