Combination prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients undergoing double‐guidewire assisted biliary cannulation: A case–control study with propensity score matching. Issue 7 (2nd March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Xu; Luo, Hui; Luo, Bing; Ren, Gui; Liang, Shuhui; Wang, Xiangping; Tao, Qin; Zhang, Linhui; Kang, Xiaoyu; Guo, Xuegang; Pan, Yanglin
• Is Part Of: Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. Volume 36:Issue 7(2021)
• Page Start: 1905
• Page End: 1912
• Publication Date: 2021-03-02
• Subjects: ERCP -- double‐guidewire technique -- indomethacin -- PD stenting -- PEP; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Liver Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15402
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0815-9319

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aim: Rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are recommended for the prevention of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). However, the effects of the combination of the two methods on preventing PEP are controversial. We hypothesized that some group of difficult patients might benefit from the combination of indomethacin plus PDS (IP) compared with indomethacin alone (IN). Methods: Patients with native papilla who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in eight tertiary hospitals were screened. They were enrolled if the cannulation proved difficult and post‐procedure indomethacin was administered. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between IP and IN groups. The primary outcome was PEP. Results: Among 4456 patients with available cannulation‐related data, 1889 (42.4%) patients had difficult cannulation and received indomethacin. After PSM, both IP and IN groups included 332 patients. PEP was comparable between the two groups (12.7% vs 10.2%, P = 0.329). By subgroup analysis, the PEP rate was found to be lower in the IP group than in the IN group (7.3% vs 18.2%, P = 0.026) in patients undergoing double‐guidewire technique (DGT). The results of an additional analysis using PSM in DGT patients were consistent with the subgroup analysis results (7.8% vs 19.4%, P = 0.036). Conclusions: The current study indicated that the combined prevention of PEP with indomethacin plus PDS was useful in PEP prevention in patients undergoing DGT. Other groups of patients with difficult cannulation may not benefit from the combination strategy.