Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Rectal Indomethacin vs. Compounded Rectal Diclofenac Prophylaxis.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Digestive Diseases and Sciences Pub Date : 2024-08-31 DOI:10.1007/s10620-024-08604-5
Laurens P Janssens, Aishwarya Yamparala, John Martin, John O'Meara, William S Harmsen, Thanmay Sathi, Elizabeth Lemke, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Aliana Bofill-Garcia, Bret T Petersen, Andrew C Storm, Mark Topazian, Eric J Vargas, Vinay Chandrasekhara, Ryan J Law
{"title":"Incidence of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Receiving Rectal Indomethacin vs. Compounded Rectal Diclofenac Prophylaxis.","authors":"Laurens P Janssens, Aishwarya Yamparala, John Martin, John O'Meara, William S Harmsen, Thanmay Sathi, Elizabeth Lemke, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Aliana Bofill-Garcia, Bret T Petersen, Andrew C Storm, Mark Topazian, Eric J Vargas, Vinay Chandrasekhara, Ryan J Law","doi":"10.1007/s10620-024-08604-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a 3-15% risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of PEP, but its cost has increased more than 20-fold over the past decade. Rectal diclofenac is also used to prevent PEP but is not commercially available in the United States. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PEP after administration of commercially available rectal indomethacin versus compounded rectal diclofenac and assess financial implications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ERCP cases at our institution with administration of 100 mg rectal indomethacin or 100 mg compounded rectal diclofenac between May 2018 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and severity of PEP was compared between the indomethacin (n = 728) and diclofenac (n = 304) groups. Risk factors (young age, female sex, history of pancreatitis or PEP, sphincterotomy during procedure, pancreatic indication, trainee involvement) and protective factors (prior sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct stenting) for PEP were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>60 patients (8.2%) in the rectal indomethacin group and 25 patients (8.2%) in the compounded rectal diclofenac group developed PEP, resulting in moderate or severe PEP in 9 (15.0%) and 2 (8.0%) patients, respectively. The compounded rectal diclofenac group had more trainee involvement (46.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.0001) and more prior sphincterotomy cases (15.8% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0193) compared to the rectal indomethacin group; no statistically significant differences were observed in all other risk and protective factors. Following switch to compounded rectal diclofenac, institutional annual cost savings amounted to $441,460.62 and patient charge decreased 45-fold.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This retrospective single-center real-world analysis showed similar efficacy of rectal indomethacin and compounded rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP but demonstrates substantial cost savings after switching to compounded rectal diclofenac.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08604-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a 3-15% risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of PEP, but its cost has increased more than 20-fold over the past decade. Rectal diclofenac is also used to prevent PEP but is not commercially available in the United States. The aim of this study is to compare the incidence of PEP after administration of commercially available rectal indomethacin versus compounded rectal diclofenac and assess financial implications.

Methods: ERCP cases at our institution with administration of 100 mg rectal indomethacin or 100 mg compounded rectal diclofenac between May 2018 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The incidence and severity of PEP was compared between the indomethacin (n = 728) and diclofenac (n = 304) groups. Risk factors (young age, female sex, history of pancreatitis or PEP, sphincterotomy during procedure, pancreatic indication, trainee involvement) and protective factors (prior sphincterotomy, pancreatic duct stenting) for PEP were compared between groups.

Results: 60 patients (8.2%) in the rectal indomethacin group and 25 patients (8.2%) in the compounded rectal diclofenac group developed PEP, resulting in moderate or severe PEP in 9 (15.0%) and 2 (8.0%) patients, respectively. The compounded rectal diclofenac group had more trainee involvement (46.1% vs. 32.8%, p = 0.0001) and more prior sphincterotomy cases (15.8% vs. 10.6%, p = 0.0193) compared to the rectal indomethacin group; no statistically significant differences were observed in all other risk and protective factors. Following switch to compounded rectal diclofenac, institutional annual cost savings amounted to $441,460.62 and patient charge decreased 45-fold.

Conclusion: This retrospective single-center real-world analysis showed similar efficacy of rectal indomethacin and compounded rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP but demonstrates substantial cost savings after switching to compounded rectal diclofenac.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
接受直肠吲哚美辛与复方直肠双氯芬酸预防治疗的患者发生 ERCP 后胰腺炎的几率。
背景和目的:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)后发生胰腺炎(PEP)的风险为 3-15%。直肠吲哚美辛可降低 PEP 风险,但其成本在过去十年中增加了 20 多倍。直肠用双氯芬酸也可用于预防 PEP,但在美国还没有上市。本研究旨在比较使用市售直肠吲哚美辛和复方直肠双氯芬酸后的 PEP 发生率,并评估其财务影响:回顾性分析我院2018年5月至2022年1月期间使用100毫克直肠吲哚美辛或100毫克复方直肠双氯芬酸的ERCP病例。比较了吲哚美辛组(n = 728)和双氯芬酸组(n = 304)的 PEP 发生率和严重程度。比较了各组 PEP 的危险因素(年轻、女性、胰腺炎或 PEP 病史、手术中的括约肌切开术、胰腺适应症、受训者参与)和保护因素(之前的括约肌切开术、胰管支架植入术):结果:直肠吲哚美辛组 60 名患者(8.2%)和复方直肠双氯芬酸组 25 名患者(8.2%)出现 PEP,分别有 9 名(15.0%)和 2 名(8.0%)患者出现中度或重度 PEP。与直肠吲哚美辛组相比,复方直肠双氯芬酸组有更多的受训人员参与(46.1% 对 32.8%,P = 0.0001),且有更多的括约肌切开术病例(15.8% 对 10.6%,P = 0.0193);在所有其他风险和保护因素方面,未观察到显著的统计学差异。改用复方直肠双氯芬酸后,机构每年节省的成本达 441,460.62 美元,患者的费用减少了 45 倍:这项回顾性单中心真实世界分析显示,直肠用药吲哚美辛和复方直肠用药双氯芬酸在预防 PEP 方面的疗效相似,但改用复方直肠用药双氯芬酸后可节省大量成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Digestive Diseases and Sciences 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
3.20%
发文量
420
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Anastomosis Strictures: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Difficulty of Bile Duct Cannulation and Selecting the Appropriate Cannulation Method Association of Race and Postoperative Outcomes in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Correction to: miR‑9‑5p Suppresses Malignant Biological Behaviors of Human Gastric Cancer Cells by Negative Regulation of TNFAIP8L3 Successful Endoscopic Resection of Multiple Colorectal Leiomyosarcomas: The First Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1