Journals / Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine / 2023 / Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Evaluation of pancreatic stent and/or suppository indomethacin efficacy in post ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis: a single center experience

Pages
374–379
Publication Date
2023-03-27
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

All patients with involuntary wires in the pancreatic duct, should be evaluated for pancreatic stent placement.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a serious complication of ERCP.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Method: Patients who underwent ERCP for the first time due to choledocholithiasis between January 2022 and June 2022 were retrospectively reviewed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:All patients with involuntary wires in the pancreatic duct, should be evaluated for pancreatic stent placement.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2022 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Post-ERCP pancreatitis · rectal indomethacin · pancreatic stent

Abstract

Aim: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a serious complication of ERCP. In this study, we aimed to compare the use of rectal indomethacin, pancreatic stenting or both techniques for prevention of PEP. Material and Method: Patients who underwent ERCP for the first time due to choledocholithiasis between January 2022 and June 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical findings, demographics, laboratory records, endoscopic intervention characteristics, whether rectal indomethacin was applied before the procedure, whether pancreatic stent was placed or not were evaluated. Results: A total of 367 patients who underwent ERCP for the first time were included in the study. The mean age was 61 (28-92) years and 53.4% were female. In 124 (33.8%) patients, involuntary guide-wire insertion into the pancreatic duct occurred during canulation. Pancreatic stent was placed in 82 (22.3%) of the patients. Rectal indomethacin was administered to 288 patients (78.5%), while indomethacin could not be administered in 79 patients (21.5%), because they did not give consent. When patients with involuntarily pancreatic canulation were evaluated, the rate of PEP was 3.6% in the stented group, while it was 15.3% in the stent-free group (p<0001). The incidence of PEP was 20.3% in 79 patients who could not be administered rectal indomethacin, while this rate was 3.1% in those who received rectal indomethacin (p<0001). Conclusion: The first and most important way to prevent PEP is to avoid unnecessary ERCPs. Rectal indomethacin administration reduces the risk of PEP. All patients with involuntary wires in the pancreatic duct, should be evaluated for pancreatic stent placement.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDOĞAN, Ç., GÜVEN, İ. E., BAŞPINAR, B., KILIÇ, Z. M. Y. (2023). Evaluation of pancreatic stent and/or suppository indomethacin efficacy in post ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis: a single center experience. Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 374–379. https://ajindex.com/articles/907852

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Barritt AS, et al. Burden of Gastrointestinal, Liver, and Pancreatic Diseases in the United States. Gastroenterology 2015; 149:1731
  2. TORVIK A, HOIVIK B. Gallstones in an autopsy series. Incidence, complications, and correlations with carcinoma of the gallbladder. Acta Chir Scand 1960; 120:168
  3. Zahor A, Sternby NH, Kagan A, et al. Frequency of cholelithiasis in Prague and Malmö. An autopsy study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1974; 9:3
  4. Brett M, Barker DJ. The world distribution of gallstones. Int J Epidemiol 1976; 5:335
  5. Collins C, Maguire D, Ireland A, et al. A prospective study of common bile duct calculi in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: natural history of choledocholithiasis revisited. Ann Surg 2004; 239:28
  6. Hunter JG. Laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration. Am J Surg 1992; 163:53
  7. Prat F, Amouyal G, Amouyal P, et al. Prospective controlled study of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in patients with suspected common-bileduct lithiasis. Lancet 1996; 347:75
  8. Gurusamy KS, Giljaca V, Takwoingi Y, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus intraoperative cholangiography for diagnosis of common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;:CD010339
  9. Siiki A, Tamminen A, Tomminen T, Kuusanmäki P. ERCP procedures in a Finnish community hospital: a retrospective analysis of 1207 cases. Scand J Surg 2012; 101:45
  10. Kapral C, Mühlberger A, Wewalka F, et al. Quality assessment of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a running nationwide Austrian benchmarking project after 5 years of implementation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24:1447
  11. Kienbauer M, Duller C, Gschwantler M, et al. [Austrian benchmarking project for ERCP: a 10-year report]. Z Gastroenterol 2018; 56:1227
  12. Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaløy JT, et al. Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg 2013; 100:373
  13. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102:1781
  14. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52:127
  15. Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by