Samuel Han MD, MS , Jingwen Zhang MS , Valerie Durkalski-Mauldin PhD , Lydia D. Foster MS , Jose Serrano MD, PhD , Gregory A. Coté MD , Ji Young Bang MD , Shyam Varadarajulu MD , Vikesh K. Singh MD , Mouen Khashab MD , Richard S. Kwon MD , James M. Scheiman MD , Field F. Willingham MD , Steven A. Keilin MD , J. Royce Groce MD , Peter J. Lee MBBS , Somashekar G. Krishna MD , Amitabh Chak MD , Adam Slivka MD, PhD , Daniel Mullady MD , Georgios I. Papachristou MD, PhD
{"title":"Impact of difficult biliary cannulation on post-ERCP pancreatitis: secondary analysis of the stent versus indomethacin trial dataset","authors":"Samuel Han MD, MS , Jingwen Zhang MS , Valerie Durkalski-Mauldin PhD , Lydia D. Foster MS , Jose Serrano MD, PhD , Gregory A. Coté MD , Ji Young Bang MD , Shyam Varadarajulu MD , Vikesh K. Singh MD , Mouen Khashab MD , Richard S. Kwon MD , James M. Scheiman MD , Field F. Willingham MD , Steven A. Keilin MD , J. Royce Groce MD , Peter J. Lee MBBS , Somashekar G. Krishna MD , Amitabh Chak MD , Adam Slivka MD, PhD , Daniel Mullady MD , Georgios I. Papachristou MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) is a known risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). To better understand how DBC increases PEP risk, we examined the interplay between technical aspects of DBC and known PEP risk factors.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing rectal indomethacin alone with the combination of rectal indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for PEP prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: DBC with high preprocedure risk for PEP, DBC without high preprocedure risk for PEP, and non-DBC at high preprocedure risk for PEP.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In all, 1601 participants (84.1%) experienced DBC, which required a mean of 12 cannulation attempts (standard deviation, 10) and mean duration of 14.7 minutes (standard deviation, 14.9). PEP rate was highest (20.7%) in DBC with a high preprocedure risk, followed by non-DBC with a high preprocedure risk (13.5%), and then DBC without a high preprocedure risk (8.8%). Increasing number of PD wire passages (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-3.1) was associated with PEP in DBC, but PD injection, pancreatic sphincterotomy, and number of cannulation attempts were not associated with PEP. Combining indomethacin with PD stent placement lowered the risk of PEP (aOR, .61; 95% CI, .44-.84) in DBCs. This protective effect was evident in up to at least 4 PD wire passages.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>DBC confers higher PEP risk in an additive fashion to preprocedural risk factors. PD wire passages appear to add the greatest PEP risk in DBCs, but combining indomethacin with PD stent placement reduces this risk, even with increasing PD wire passages.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":"101 3","pages":"Pages 617-628"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001651072403548X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Aims
Difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) is a known risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). To better understand how DBC increases PEP risk, we examined the interplay between technical aspects of DBC and known PEP risk factors.
Methods
This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing rectal indomethacin alone with the combination of rectal indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for PEP prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: DBC with high preprocedure risk for PEP, DBC without high preprocedure risk for PEP, and non-DBC at high preprocedure risk for PEP.
Results
In all, 1601 participants (84.1%) experienced DBC, which required a mean of 12 cannulation attempts (standard deviation, 10) and mean duration of 14.7 minutes (standard deviation, 14.9). PEP rate was highest (20.7%) in DBC with a high preprocedure risk, followed by non-DBC with a high preprocedure risk (13.5%), and then DBC without a high preprocedure risk (8.8%). Increasing number of PD wire passages (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-3.1) was associated with PEP in DBC, but PD injection, pancreatic sphincterotomy, and number of cannulation attempts were not associated with PEP. Combining indomethacin with PD stent placement lowered the risk of PEP (aOR, .61; 95% CI, .44-.84) in DBCs. This protective effect was evident in up to at least 4 PD wire passages.
Conclusions
DBC confers higher PEP risk in an additive fashion to preprocedural risk factors. PD wire passages appear to add the greatest PEP risk in DBCs, but combining indomethacin with PD stent placement reduces this risk, even with increasing PD wire passages.
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.