Pharmacological prophylaxis versus pancreatic duct stenting plus pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients: a randomized trial

Author:

Sotoudehmanesh Rasoul12,Ali-Asgari Ali12,Khatibian Morteza12,Mohamadnejad Mehdi13,Merat Shahin123,Sadeghi Anahita12,Keshtkar Abbas4,Bagheri Mohammad12,Delavari Alireza13,Amani Mohammad13,Vahedi Homayoon12,Nasseri-Moghaddam Siavosh123,Sima Alireza12,Eloubeidi Mohamad A.5,Malekzadeh Reza123

Affiliation:

1. Liver and Pancreaticobiliary Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2. Digestive Disease Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3. Digestive Oncology Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4. Department of Health Science Educational Development, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5. Anniston Digestive Health, Anniston, Alabama, United States

Abstract

Abstract Background Acute pancreatitis is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this noninferiority study was to evaluate the effectiveness of pancreatic duct (PD) stenting plus pharmacological prophylaxis vs. pharmacological prophylaxis alone in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high risk patients. Methods In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, noninferiority trial, patients at high risk of developing PEP were randomly allocated to pharmacological prophylaxis (rectal indomethacin, sublingual isosorbide dinitrate, and intravenous hydration with Ringer’s lactate) plus PD stenting (group A) or pharmacological prophylaxis alone (group B). The rate and severity of PEP, serum amylase levels, and length of hospital stay after ERCP were assessed. Results During 21 months, a total of 414 patients (mean age 55.5 ± 17.0 years; 60.2 % female) were enrolled (207 in each group). PEP occurred in 59 patients (14.3 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 11.1 % – 17.9 %: 26 patients [12.6 %, 95 %CI 8.6 % – 17.6 %] in group A and 33 [15.9 %, 95 %CI 11.4 % – 21.4 %] in group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in PEP severity (P = 0.59), amylase levels after 2 hours (P = 0.31) or 24 hours (P = 0.08), and length of hospital stay (P = 0.07). Conclusions The study failed to demonstrate noninferiority or inferiority of pharmacological prophylaxis alone compared with PD stenting plus pharmacological prophylaxis in the prevention of PEP in high risk patients.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Gastroenterology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3