Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec;69(12):4476-4488.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-024-08693-2. Epub 2024 Nov 5.

Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Christina J Sperna Weiland #  1 , Venkata S Akshintala #  2 , Anmol Singh  2 , James Buxbaum  3 , Jun-Ho Choi  4 , Badih J Elmunzer  5 , Evan S Fogel  6 , Jian-Han Lai  7 , John M Levenick  8 , Timothy B Gardner  9 , Guan W Lua  10 , Hui Luo  11 , Mike de Jong  12 , Shaffer R S Mok  13 , Veit Phillip  14 , Vikesh Singh  2 , Peter D Siersema  12 , Joost P H Drenth  12 , Erwin J M van Geenen  12
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis

Christina J Sperna Weiland et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient's risk profile.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP.

Results: Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk.

Conclusion: This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.

Keywords: ERCP; PEP; Pancreatitis; Patient-level meta-analysis; Rectal indomethacin.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: JPHD has received research funding from Gilead and Abbvie. EJMvG has received research funding from Boston Scientific, Micro-Tech, Pentax, Tae Woong, Olympus, Viatris, and Zambon Medical and served as a consultant for MTW-Endoskopie. PS has received research funding from Pentax, Boston Scientific, Micro-Tech, and The Enose Company. VK reports personal fees from Abbvie, is an advisory board participant for Cook Medical, and receives grants from Orgensis and Theraly. VSA is co-founder and chief medical officer of Origin Endoscopy Inc., Solv Endotherapy Inc. and consultant for Olympus and has received educational grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Abbvie, and Chirhoclin. All other authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: N/A. Informed consent: N/A. Registry and the registration no. of study: PROSPERO: registration number CRD42021231197. Animal studies: N/A.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The PRISMA IPDMA flow diagram. IPD individual patient data
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The forest plot shows the effect of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis strategies at the study level and is summarized through meta-analyses
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Akshintala VS, Kanthasamy K, Bhullar FA et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of 145 randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:1–6. - PubMed
    1. Andriulli A, Loperfido S. Efficacy versus effectiveness of octreotide in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Official J Am Coll Gastroenterol 2007;102:1539. - PubMed
    1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2018. Gastroenterology 2019;156:254–272. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project 2020. [cited 2020 May 1]; https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/
    1. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2020;52:127–149. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances