Published online Feb 15, 2014. doi: 10.4291/wjgp.v5.i1.1
Revised: November 21, 2013
Accepted: December 12, 2013
Published online: February 15, 2014
Post-procedure pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality occurring in at least 3%-5% of all procedures. We reviewed the available literature searching for “ERCP” and “pancreatitis” and “post-ERCP pancreatitis”. in PubMed and Medline. This review looks at the diagnosis, risk factors, causes and methods of preventing post-procedure pancreatitis. These include the evidence for patient selection, endoscopic techniques and pharmacological prophylaxis of ERCP induced pancreatitis. Selecting the right patient for the procedure by a risk benefits assessment is the best way of avoiding unnecessary ERCPs. Risk is particularly high in young women with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). Many of the trials reviewed have rather few numbers of subjects and hence difficult to appraise. Meta-analyses have helped screen for promising modalities of prophylaxis. At present, evidence is emerging that pancreatic stenting of patients with SOD and rectally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in a large unselected trial reduce the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethecin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. It is likely that one of these prophylactic measures will begin to be increasingly practised in high risk groups.
Core tip: Select patients carefully, and give high risk patients rectal indomethacin.
- Citation: Wong LL, Tsai HH. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2014; 5(1): 1-10
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2150-5330/full/v5/i1/1.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4291/wjgp.v5.i1.1
Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) and carries a high morbidity and mortality[1,2]. There is a 3%-5% incidence of this complication occurring, as shown in various large clinical studies[2-4]. A systematic survey of 21 studies involving 16855 patients (1987-2003) found a 3.5% occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. 0.4% of patients had severe pancreatitis with 0.11% deaths[5].
Predicting pancreatitis after ERCP can be very difficult but there have been numerous studies that have identified factors that increase the risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis. These can have a cumulative effect when multiple factors are present. There are multiple procedures and pharmacological interventions that have been studied to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. This article describes these some of these interventions and includes the latest studies.
Post-ERCP pancreatitis is defined as acute pancreatitis occurring following an ERCP procedure. This consists of the development of new pancreatic-type abdominal pain associated with hyperamylasemia of three times the upper-limit of normal, occurring 24 h after an ERCP requiring hospital admission. Severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis is graded based on length of hospital admission and need for intervention. It can be divided into mild, moderate and severe (Table 1), based on a consensus definition[6].
| Severity ofpancreatitis | Definition |
| Mild | Clinical pancreatitis, amylase at least 3 × normal > 24 h after procedure, requiring unplanned admission or prolongation of planned admission to 2-3 d |
| Moderate | Hospitalisation of 4-10 d |
| Severe | Hospitalisation of > 10 d, haemorrhagic pancreatitis, pancreatic necrosis or pseudocyst, or need for intervention (percutaneous drainage or surgery) |
Freeman et al[1] studied the complication rate that occurred in 2347 patients undergoing endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. Acute pancreatitis occurred in 127 patients (5.4%). Mild post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 53 (2.3%), moderate in 65 (2.8%) and severe in 9 (0.4%). Of the latter, one died of retroperitoneal perforation, one required percutaneous drainage of a pseudocyst and three required surgical drainage.
Many studies have looked into factors that increase the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. These can be divided into patient-related risk factors, endoscopist-related risk factors and procedure-related risk factors. Table 2 summarises the general consensus of risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis[3,7,8]. These factors should alert the endoscopist to take special precautions in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis[9]. In addition, there is a cumulative effect for patients with multiple risk factors. For example, a young woman with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, normal bilirubin, difficult cannulation and absence of bile duct stones has an associated increased risk of pancreatitis of 40%[10,11].
| Risk factors for post ERCP pancreatitis | |
| Patient-related factors | Younger age |
| Female sex | |
| Normal serum bilirubin | |
| Recurrent pancreatitis | |
| Prior ERCP-induced pancreatitis | |
| Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction | |
| Endoscopist-related factors | Difficult cannulation |
| Pancreatic duct injection | |
| Sphincter of Oddi manometry | |
| Precut sphincterotomy | |
| Pancreatic sphincterotomy | |
| Minor papilla sphincterotomy | |
| Procedure-related factors | Trainee involvement in procedure |
There are other factors that have been identified which require further studies. One retrospective study identified taking pancreato-toxic drugs (oestrogen, azathioprine, valproic acid, mesalazine, morphine derivatives and prednisone) increased the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 3.7)[12].
Another retrospective study of 506 patients identified angiotensin receptor blockers and smoking as independent risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis[13] whereas a recent case-control study of 6505 patients identified smoking and chronic liver disease as factors that reduced the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis[14].
Testoni et al[7] conducted a large prospective multicentre trial (total of 3635 ERCP procedures) and showed that the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis did not differ between high- and low-volume centres (3.9% vs 3.1%). However, the high-volume centres treated a larger proportion of patients at high-risk of pancreatitis and did a significantly greater number of difficult procedures. In another large multicentre prospective trial (2347 patients), case volume did not affect incidence of pancreatitis although the multivariate model indicated low case volume was independently associated with higher overall rate of complications[1].
Operator experience has been difficult to demonstrate as a risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis due to the heterogeneity of studies with variable case volume and case mix. One French study showed no risk associated with operator inexperience[14].
In the multivariate analysis of a randomised controlled multicentre study by Cheng et al[8], trainee involvement in the procedure was found to be a risk factor (OR = 1.5) for development of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Biliary stenting was found to be an independent risk factor for pancreatitis in a single-centre prospective study by Wilcox et al[15]. The commonest indication for stent placement was pancreaticobiliary malignancy (37% of patients). Another retrospective study on patients undergoing ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction found the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly higher with placement of self-expanding metal stents compared with a plastic stent[16].
There are various mechanisms proposed in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis[17,18]. These include: (1) mechanical injury from instrumentation of papilla and pancreatic duct; (2) thermal injury following application of electrosurgical current during biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy; (3) hydrostatic injury - following injection of contrast medium into the pancreatic duct of from infusion of water or saline solution during sphincter manometry; (4) chemical or allergic injury following injection of contrast medium into the pancreatic duct; (5) enzymatic injury with intraluminal activation of proteolytic enzymes; and (6) infection from contaminated endoscope and accessories.
Preventive measures are aimed at interrupting the cascade of events resulting in the premature activation of proteolytic enzymes, autodigestion and impaired acinar secretion with subsequent clinical manifestations of local and systemic effects of pancreatitis[17].
Cannulation: Various methods to ease cannulation of the bile duct and reduce trauma have been studied with view of reducing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
In general, guidewire technique to facilitate bile duct cannulation has been shown to improve primary biliary duct cannulation but incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis has not been consistently shown to be reduced by this technique.
In a meta-analysis of five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), guidewire cannulation was shown to lower post-ERCP pancreatitis (rates 0%-3%) compared to standard contrast-injection method (rates 4%-12%) and increase primary cannulation rates compared to the standard method (OR = 2.05)[19].
A Cochrane meta-analysis of 12 RCTs (3450 patients) similarly found that post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the wire-guided cannulation (WGC) group (3.5%) compared to contrast-assisted cannulation technique (6.7%) and primary cannulation rates were higher in the WCG group (84% vs 77%, RR = 1.07). However, WGC may not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with suspected Sphincter-of-Oddi dysfunction and unintentional pancreatic duct guidewire cannulation[20].
In contrast, a recent crossover multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 322 patients compared wire-guided biliary cannulation with conventional cannulation technique - the trial found that the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was similar in both groups (6.1% vs 6.3%, P = 0.95). Primary biliary cannulation rate was similar for both groups as well (83% vs 87%)[21].
Another prospective trial involving 1249 patients did not find any significant difference in the rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis with the guidewire technique compared with sphincterotome and contrast injection method[22].
Many advanced endoscopists use a hybrid of the two techniques (wire probes with minimal contrast to outline distal duct course) which avoid dissections or passage of the guidewire out of a side branch of the pancreatic duct. This hybrid technique however has not been formally evaluated[23].
Electrocautery: Thermal injury following application of electrosurgical current during biliary or pancreatic sphincterotomy is thought to contribute to causing post-ERCP pancreatitis. A number of studies have been conducted to compare pure cut current with blended current and bipolar vs monopolar electrocautery. These have produced mixed results. A meta-analysis of four trials (total: 804 patients) comparing pure current to mixed current in patients who underwent sphincterotomy found no significant difference in the rates of pancreatitis. Pure current was however associated with more episodes of bleeding, primarily mild bleeding[24]. The use of sequential combination of pure cut and blended current for sphincterotomy was studied in 142 patients - this did not change the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis but did cause less visible bleeding than pure cut alone[25].
Pancreatic stenting: Pancreatic duct obstruction or impaired pancreatic drainage from papillary oedema or spasm of the sphincter of Oddi has been postulated to cause post-ERCP pancreatitis[17]. Numerous studies have looked into the prophylactic placement of a pancreatic stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Due to their variability in indications for stenting, interventions and outcome measures - comparisons and conclusions can be difficult. A few trials have shown that pancreatic stent insertion reduces the rate and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis after difficult cannulation, needle-knife precut, biliary sphincterotomy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) and manometry, pancreatic sphincterotomy, endoscopic ampullectomy and endoscopic balloon dilation[26-33].
A recent meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pancreatic stent placement and the subsequent incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis enrolled 14 studies (total: 1541 patients). This found that pancreatic stent placement was associated with significant reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.29-0.53, P < 0.001) as compared with no stent placement. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that pancreatic stent placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups[34].
Another meta-analysis by Choudhary et al[35] analysed eight RCTs (656 patients) and this showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR = 0.22; 95%CI: 0.12-0.38, P < 0.01) with an absolute risk difference of 13%.
Pancreatic stenting comes with some limitations. It is associated with complications such as stent-related ductal injury and strictures[36]. Many endoscopists and assistants are unfamiliar with the placement of pancreatic stents. In addition, unsuccessful stent placement can itself be associated with a risk of pancreatitis. Freeman et al[37] conducted a prospective study of 225 high risk ERCPs. Pancreatitis occurred in two out of three (66.7%) patients in whom stent insertion failed vs 32 of 222 (14.4%) patients with successful insertion (P = 0.06).
Follow-up evaluation is necessary to ensure passage or removal of stent and placement can be technically difficult. The optimal timing for stent placement and duration for stent to remain in place is unknown. There is also variability in the type of stent used[17,33]. Short 5 French stents are easier to deploy and are more likely to migrate spontaneously compared with long 3 French stents. However, they do not confer a benefit in terms of pancreatitis risk reduction. The optimal duration for stents to remain in place is unknown. Chahal et al[38] compared the outcomes of a short straight 5 French stent without an inner flange with an unflanged long single pigtail 3 French stent. They found a significantly higher placement failure rate in the 3 French group (8.3% vs 0%, P = 0.0003), a higher spontaneous dislodgement rate in the 5 French group (98% vs 88% for 3 Fr, P = 0.0001) and a non-significant higher pancreatitis rate (14% vs 9%, P = 0.3).
Since the introduction of ERCP, numerous studies have been carried out in the pursuit to discover the most effective pharmacological prophylactic agent against post-ERCP pancreatitis. These were done based on the postulated mechanisms of action through which post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred (Table 3)[39,40].
| Postulated mechanismof action | Agents |
| Interruption of inflam matory cascade | NSAIDs, steroids, interleukin-10, allopurinol, adrenaline spray, pentoxifylline, platelet-activating factor-acetylhidrolase, semapimod, aprepitant, risperidone |
| Reduction of pancreatic enzyme secretion | Octreotide, somatostatin, calcitonin |
| Inhibition of protease activity | Gabexate mesilate, heparin, ulinastatin, nafamostat, magnesium sulphate |
| Reduction of Sphincter- of-Oddi pressure | Nitroglycerin, nifedipine, botulinum toxin, lidocaine, secretin, phosphodiesterase inhibitor type 5 |
| Prevention of infection | Antibiotics |
| Anti-oxidants | Beta-carotene, N-acetylcysteine, sodium selenite |
| Anti-metabolites | 5-fluorouracil |
Interruption of inflammatory cascade (anti-inflammatory): Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been studied for their inhibitory properties on phospholipid A2 (PLA2) and prostaglandins, which lead to interruption of the inflammatory cascade of acute pancreatitis[41]. A Finnish group, Mäkelä et al[42] studied the in-vitro inhibition of PLA2 in acute pancreatitis by 17 different pharmacological agents. They found that indomethacin was the most potent of the agents in inhibiting PLA2 activity in the serum from patients with acute pancreatitis followed by diclofenac.
Murray et al[43] conducted a prospective, randomised, double-blind controlled trial involving 220 patients. In the twenty-four patients (11%) who developed acute pancreatitis, 7 had received 100mg diclofenac suppository given immediately after ERCP vs 17 who received placebo (P < 0.05). They concluded that rectal diclofenac given immediately after ERCP can reduce the incidence of acute pancreatitis.
Since then, three meta-analysis have been published, analysing the effect of NSAIDs in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The results of each meta-analyses are as follows: (1) Elmunzer et al[44]: Four RCTs (912 patients) evaluating rectal NSAIDs (indomethacin or diclofenac) administration in the peri-procedure period were analysed. This found a significant reduced incidence of pancreatitis with pooled relative risk of 0.36. The pooled number needed to treat with NSAIDs to prevent one episode of pancreatitis was 15; (2) Dai et al[45]: Six RCTs (1300 patients) were analysed. These included the 4 RCTs in the above-mentioned meta-analysis as well as two additional trials. Two trials used rectal diclofenac, three used rectal indomethacin and one used oral diclofenac. The risk of pancreatitis was lower in the NSAID group than in the placebo group (OR = 0.46, P < 0.0001)[45]; and (3) Ding et al[46]: Meta-analysis of ten RCTs (2269 patients) showed that NSAIDs decreased the overall incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR = 0.57, P = 0.007) with an absolute risk reduction of 5.9% and number needed to treat: 17. In addition, NSAIDs use decreased the incidence of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR = 0.46, P = 0.002). This meta-analyses included studies that were heterogenous in NSAIDs-type (indomethacin, diclofenac or valdecoxib) and route of administration. Rectal administration of NSAIDs was associated with a decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in all six trials that used this route while the other routes studied in 4 studies (oral, intramuscular, intravenous and intraduodenal) were not.
Rectal administration is the most effective route for NSAIDs in post-ERCP prevention. This is postulated to be due to wider bioavailability compared to oral route (with significant first-pass metabolism) and the quicker peak plasma NSAIDs concentrations (30 min for rectal route vs 2 h for oral route)[47,48].
All the trials showed no adverse effects from NSAIDs administration to patients. However, limitations to the meta-analyses were differences in pharmacological manipulation (timing, route of administration and choice of drug), inconsistent use of pancreatic stenting, inclusion of both high-risk and low-risk patients and differences in ERCP procedures (e.g., number of cannulations, number of pancreatic duct injections, whether sphincterotomy was performed). In addition, different definitions of pancreatitis were used [some used 4 × upper limit of normal (ULN) hyperamylasemia while some used 3 × ULN with abdominal pain][44,45]
The latest multi-centre trial by Elmunzer et al[49] was carried out using a randomised, placebo-controlled and double-blind method. This compared rectal indomethacin vs placebo immediately after ERCP. A total of 602 patients were enrolled of which 82% were high-risk (suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction). Rectal indomethacin was found to significantly reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (9.2% vs 16.9%, P = 0.005).
A recent meta-analysis have demonstrated that rectally administered indomethacin, just before or after ERCP is associated with significantly lower rate of pancreatitis compared with placebo [OR = 0.49 (0.34-0.71); P = 0.0002]. Number needed to treat was 20. Moreover they found that in subgroup analysis, the difference remained unchanged for average-risk population [OR = 0.49 (0.28-0.85); P = 0.01] or in preventing severe PEP [OR = 0.41 (0.21-0.78); P = 0.007][50]. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published guidelines in 2010 with grade A recommendation for the administration of rectal diclofenac 100 mg or indomethacin immediately before or after ERCP as post-ERCP prophylaxis[51]. The United States and United Kingdom however have not yet come to a consensus regarding this.
The available evidence suggests that prophylactic rectal administration of NSAIDs should be used in high-risk patients due to its marked reduction in incidence post-ERCP pancreatitis. This will result in substantial medical and cost benefits.
Other anti-inflammatory agents: Glucocorticoids have been evaluated as a potential prophylactic agent in a few studies (intravenous and oral). Initial promising reports have been followed by five prospective controlled trials which have demonstrated its inefficacy in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis[52-58]. Finally, a meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials using intravenous or oral corticosteroids (total: 2448 patients) demonstrated that prophylactic corticosteroids did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis[59].
Interleukin-10 is an anti-inflammatory cytokine that has been shown to limit the severity of acute pancreatitis in animal models. One initial study (144 patients, placebo-controlled) found the incidence of pancreatitis was reduced by a single IV dose given 30 min before ERCP (8% vs 24% in placebo)[60]. It was also effective for high-risk patients. However, two subsequent placebo-controlled trials (total 505 patients) did not demonstrate any efficacy[61,62].
Allopurinol has been studied for its inhibitory properties on oxygen-derived free radicals. Trials studying the effect of allopurinol on post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention have revealed conflicting results. Subsequent two meta-analyses of 10 RCTs (1554 patients and 1730 patients respectively) have concluded that allopurinol does not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis and should be not recommended as a prophylactic agent[63,64].
Other agents studied (Adrenaline spray, pentoxifylline, platelet-activating factor acetylhidrolase, semapimod, aprepitant and risperidone) have either revealed discordant results or no effect on preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis[64-73].
Reduction of pancreatic secretion: Somatostatin and its synthetic analogue, octreotide are potent inhibitors of exocrine secretion of the pancreas. Various studies have been conducted using different dosing regimes (< 6 h, ≥ 12 h or bolus). Andriulli et al[73] conducted a meta-analyses (16 studies) which concluded that somatostatin was ineffective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Two further controlled trials by Lee et al[74] and Chan et al[75] revealed conflicting results. Similar mixed results were found in studies using octreotide[76-78]. Therefore, somatostatin and octreotide are currently not recommended as a prophylactic agents.
Calcitonin has been studied and not been shown to have any prophylactic effect on pancreatic enzymes or complication rate[79,80].
Inhibition of protease activity: Protease inhibitors prevent activation of trypsin which is involved in the cascade of events leading to acute pancreatitis. Gabexate mesilate, nafamostat and ulinastatin have been studied in numerous studies. However, results of the trials have been conflicting. Some trials showed a benefit in reducing post-ERCP pancreatitis while others did not show any effect, especially in high-risk patients.
Seta et al[81] published a meta-analysis on 18 studies (4966 patients) evaluating the efficacy of protease inhibitors. This found that protease inhibitors showed a small risk reduction in ERCP-associated pancreatitis with high number needed to treat (34.5). Overall, the analysis concluded that there was no solid evidence to support the use of protease-inhibitors to prevent ERCP-associated complications.
A more recent meta-analysis by Yuhara et al[82] compared the effects of protease inhibitors and NSAIDs. This included 19 studies (nafamostat mesilate, n = 4 studies, NSAIDs, n = 7 studies and gabexate mesilate, n = 6 studies and ulinastatin, n = 2 studies). This found that nafamostat mesilate and NSAIDs had solid evidence for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (RR = 0.41 and RR = 0.58 respectively) while gabexate and ulinastatin were not associated with decreased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. These findings differed from the former meta-analysis by Seta et al[81] which did not distinguish between gabexate mesilate, ulinastatin and nafamostat mesilate.
Heparin has been studied for its anti-inflammatory properties with discordant results. A meta-analysis of four trials (1438 patients) demonstrated no benefit for prophylactic heparin in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis[83].
Magnesium sulphate (intravenous) is currently being studied as a calcium-antagonist and hence, a prophylactic agent against post-ERCP pancreatitis[84].
Reduction of sphincter-of-oddi pressure: Reducing sphincter of Oddi pressure would theoretically prevent development of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
Initial trials studying the effect of GTN (transdermal or sublingual) showed promise[85,86] but three subsequent randomised trials demonstrated no significant preventive effect on post-ERCP pancreatitis[87-89].
Numerous other drugs have been studied with disappointing or conflicting results. These include nifedipine, botulinum toxin, lidocaine and phosphodiesterase inhibitor type 5[90].
Secretin causes relaxation of the Sphincter of Oddi and increases pancreatic secretion. Studies on secretin have revealed mixed results. In a German randomised trial studying the influence of secretin and gabexate-mesilate on ERCP-related complications, secretin was shown to have no effect on ERCP-induced hyperamylasemia[91]. On the other hand, Jowell et al[92] conducted a single-centre randomised placebo-controlled trial (869 patients) using intravenous secretin (16 μg) administered immediately before ERCP vs placebo. Secretin was found to decrease the incidence of pancreatitis (8.7% vs 15.1% in the placebo group, P = 0.004). Subgroup analysis revealed that secretin was highly protective against post-ERCP pancreatitis for patients undergoing biliary sphincterotomy (6/129 vs 32/132, P < 0.001).
Antibiotics: One old controlled study has evaluated the role of antibiotics on post-ERCP pancreatitis and found no effect on its incidence[93]. Another prospective randomised controlled trial involving 315 patients demonstrated that 2 g of ceftazidime administered intravenously 30 min before ERCP significantly reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (2.6% vs 9.4% in the control group, P = 0.009). However, this study was deemed of low-methodological quality due to the unclear allocation concealment (the control group received “no antibiotics” in place of placebo). Further studies are required before antibiotics can be recommended as a prophylactic agent against post-ERCP pancreatitis[94,95].
Anti-oxidants: Oxidant stress may be involved in the pathogenesis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. N-acetylcysteine and sodium selenite have both been studied in randomised controlled trials and was shown to not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis[96]. Beta-carotene was studied in a double-blind trial and did not reduce incidence of pancreatitis between the treatment and placebo group. However, there was some postulated protective effect of treatment with beta-carotene seen as there were no patients with severe pancreatitis, as compared to the placebo group (2.22%)[97].
A recent meta-analysis looked at of 11 randomised trials (3010 patients) using N-acetylcystein, selenite, beta-carotene, allopurinol and pentoxifylline. This concluded that anti-oxidant supplementation shows no beneficial effect on the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis[98].
Selection of patients, good technique, and good aftercare remain the primary prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Currently, rectal NSAIDs are the only pharmacological agents that have been shown to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in especially in high-risk patients and is gaining wider acceptance. The other agents (protease inhibitors and anti-secretory agents) require larger multi-centre randomised trials that can control for multiple variables. ERCP techniques should be adapted according to the risk-profile of the patient. Guidewire technique eases primary biliary cannulation but has not been shown to reduce incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patient selection and stratifying risk in individual patients is vital in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Manipulation should be minimised in high-risk cases. In addition, pancreatic stenting should be used in high-risk patients, particularly young female patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, difficult cannulation or history of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
P- Reviewers: Mathew A, Piccinni G S- Editor: Wen LL L- Editor: A E- Editor: Wu HL
| 1. | Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909-918. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1716] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1607] [Article Influence: 57.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (2)] |
| 2. | Cheon YK, Cho KB, Watkins JL, McHenry L, Fogel EL, Sherman S, Lehman GA. Frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis correlated with extent of pancreatic ductal opacification. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:385-393. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 102] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 115] [Article Influence: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 3. | Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:80-88. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 449] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 426] [Article Influence: 28.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 4. | Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaløy JT, Søreide K, Aabakken L, Søreide JA. Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg. 2013;100:373-380. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 85] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 88] [Article Influence: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 5. | Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1781-1788. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 669] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 695] [Article Influence: 40.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 6. | Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383-393. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 1890] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1934] [Article Influence: 58.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (1)] |
| 7. | Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A, Vailati C, Masci E, Macarri G, Ghezzo L, Familiari L, Giardullo N, Mutignani M. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1753-1761. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 184] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 181] [Article Influence: 12.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 8. | Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M, Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:139-147. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 414] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 404] [Article Influence: 22.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 9. | Kozarek RA. ERCP economics. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:660-662. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 5] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 6] [Article Influence: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 10. | Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:425-434. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 801] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 782] [Article Influence: 34.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 11. | Perney P, Berthier E, Pageaux GP, Hillaire-Buys D, Roques V, Fabbro-Peray P, Melki M, Hanslik B, Bauret P, Larrey D. Are drugs a risk factor of post-ERCP pancreatitis? Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:696-700. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 12. | Li N, Tieng A, Novak S, Fernandes A, Jalal PK, Akerman M, Sideridis K, Bank S. Effects of medications on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2010;10:238-242. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 12] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 13. | DiMagno MJ, Spaete JP, Ballard DD, Wamsteker EJ, Saini SD. Risk models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP): smoking and chronic liver disease are predictors of protection against PEP. Pancreas. 2013;42:996-1003. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 14. | Vitte RL, Morfoisse JJ. Evaluation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures performed in general hospitals in France. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2007;31:740-749. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 19] [Article Influence: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 15. | Wilcox CM, Phadnis M, Varadarajulu S. Biliary stent placement is associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:546-550. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 31] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 16. | Coté GA, Kumar N, Ansstas M, Edmundowicz SA, Jonnalagadda S, Mullady DK, Azar RR. Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis with placement of self-expandable metallic stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:748-754. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 104] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 108] [Article Influence: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 17. | Donnellan F, Byrne MF. Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:796751. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 18. | Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:845-864. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 321] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 305] [Article Influence: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 19. | Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM, Eusebi LH, Ceroni L, Laterza L, Fabbri C, Bazzoli F. Can a wire-guided cannulation technique increase bile duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2343-2350. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 110] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 105] [Article Influence: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 20. | Tse F, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P, Leontiadis GI. Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD009662. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 21. | Kobayashi G, Fujita N, Imaizumi K, Irisawa A, Suzuki M, Murakami A, Oana S, Makino N, Komatsuda T, Yoneyama K. Wire-guided biliary cannulation technique does not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:295-302. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 22. | Mariani A, Giussani A, Di Leo M, Testoni S, Testoni PA. Guidewire biliary cannulation does not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the contrast injection technique in low-risk and high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:339-346. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 55] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 23. | Kahaleh M, Freeman M. Prevention and management of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications. Clin Endosc. 2012;45:305-312. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 24. | Verma D, Kapadia A, Adler DG. Pure versus mixed electrosurgical current for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a meta-analysis of adverse outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:283-290. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 68] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 71] [Article Influence: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 25. | Gorelick A, Cannon M, Barnett J, Chey W, Scheiman J, Elta G. First cut, then blend: an electrocautery technique affecting bleeding at sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 2001;33:976-980. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 26. | Smithline A, Silverman W, Rogers D, Nisi R, Wiersema M, Jamidar P, Hawes R, Lehman G. Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39:652-657. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 131] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 140] [Article Influence: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 27. | Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF, Meyerson SM, Geenen JE. Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:291-294. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 211] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 232] [Article Influence: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 28. | Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, Mauldin PD, Cotton PB, Hawes RH. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:1518-1524. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 293] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 267] [Article Influence: 10.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 29. | Harewood GC, Pochron NL, Gostout CJ. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:367-370. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 214] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 188] [Article Influence: 9.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 30. | Sofuni A, Maguchi H, Itoi T, Katanuma A, Hisai H, Niido T, Toyota M, Fujii T, Harada Y, Takada T. Prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by an endoscopic pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:1339-1346. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 115] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 126] [Article Influence: 7.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 31. | Aizawa T, Ueno N. Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:209-213. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 32. | Tsuchiya T, Itoi T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Kurihara T, Ishii K, Tsuji S, Kawai T, Moriyasu F. Temporary pancreatic stent to prevent post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a preliminary, single-center, randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14:302-307. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 57] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 57] [Article Influence: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 33. | Freeman ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:1354-1365. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 148] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 160] [Article Influence: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 34. | Mazaki T, Mado K, Masuda H, Shiono M. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2013;Apr 24; Epub ahead of print. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 136] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123] [Article Influence: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 35. | Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, Szary NM, Puli SR, Othman MO, Pais WP, Antillon MR, Roy PK. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:275-282. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 182] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 169] [Article Influence: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 36. | Bakman YG, Safdar K, Freeman ML. Significant clinical implications of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in previously normal pancreatic ducts. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1095-1098. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 39] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 35] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 37. | Freeman ML, Overby C, Qi D. Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:8-14. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 133] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 129] [Article Influence: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 38. | Chahal P, Tarnasky PR, Petersen BT, Topazian MD, Levy MJ, Gostout CJ, Baron TH. Short 5Fr vs long 3Fr pancreatic stents in patients at risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:834-839. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 67] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 58] [Article Influence: 3.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 39. | Testoni PA. Pharmacological prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: the facts and the fiction. JOP. 2004;5:171-178. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 40. | Mariani A. Pharmacological prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: which therapy is best? JOP. 2003;4:68-74. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 41. | Viedma JA, Pérez-Mateo M, Agulló J, Domínguez JE, Carballo F. Inflammatory response in the early prediction of severity in human acute pancreatitis. Gut. 1994;35:822-827. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 69] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 73] [Article Influence: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 42. | Mäkelä A, Kuusi T, Schröder T. Inhibition of serum phospholipase-A2 in acute pancreatitis by pharmacological agents in vitro. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 1997;57:401-407. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 95] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 102] [Article Influence: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 43. | Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C, Evans S, O’Suilleabhain C. Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1786-1791. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 172] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 191] [Article Influence: 9.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 44. | Elmunzer BJ, Waljee AK, Elta GH, Taylor JR, Fehmi SM, Higgins PD. A meta-analysis of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut. 2008;57:1262-1267. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 45. | Dai HF, Wang XW, Zhao K. Role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2009;8:11-16. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 46. | Ding X, Chen M, Huang S, Zhang S, Zou X. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:1152-1159. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 80] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 92] [Article Influence: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 47. | Cheon YK, Cho KB, Watkins JL, McHenry L, Fogel EL, Sherman S, Schmidt S, Lazzell-Pannell L, Lehman GA. Efficacy of diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in predominantly high-risk patients: a randomized double-blind prospective trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:1126-1132. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 71] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 83] [Article Influence: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 48. | Davies NM, Anderson KE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of diclofenac. Therapeutic insights and pitfalls. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1997;33:184-213. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 253] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 248] [Article Influence: 9.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 49. | Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, Chak A, Mosler P, Higgins PD, Hayward RA, Romagnuolo J, Elta GH, Sherman S. A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1414-1422. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 478] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 459] [Article Influence: 38.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 50. | Yaghoobi M, Rolland S, Waschke KA, McNabb-Baltar J, Martel M, Bijarchi R, Szego P, Barkun AN. Meta-analysis: rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:995-1001. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 51. | Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J, Mariani A, Rigaux J, Baron TH, Testoni PA. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2010;42:503-515. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 184] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 202] [Article Influence: 14.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 52. | Weiner GR, Geenen JE, Hogan WJ, Catalano MF. Use of corticosteroids in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:579-583. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 37] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 44] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 53. | Manolakopoulos S, Avgerinos A, Vlachogiannakos J, Armonis A, Viazis N, Papadimitriou N, Mathou N, Stefanidis G, Rekoumis G, Vienna E. Octreotide versus hydrocortisone versus placebo in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:470-475. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 47] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 54] [Article Influence: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 54. | Dumot JA, Conwell DL, O’Connor JB, Ferguson DR, Vargo JJ, Barnes DS, Shay SS, Sterling MJ, Horth KS, Issa K. Pretreatment with methylprednisolone to prevent ERCP-induced pancreatitis: a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93:61-65. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 36] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 42] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 55. | De Palma GD, Catanzano C. Use of corticosteriods in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: results of a controlled prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:982-985. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 39] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 47] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 56. | Budzyńska A, Marek T, Nowak A, Kaczor R, Nowakowska-Dulawa E. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of prednisone and allopurinol in the prevention of ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2001;33:766-772. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 64] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 74] [Article Influence: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 57. | Sherman S, Blaut U, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M, Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL. Does prophylactic administration of corticosteroid reduce the risk and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:23-29. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 50] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 60] [Article Influence: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 58. | Bai Y, Gao J, Shi X, Zou D, Li Z. Prophylactic corticosteroids do not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pancreatology. 2008;8:504-509. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 22] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 59. | Devière J, Le Moine O, Van Laethem JL, Eisendrath P, Ghilain A, Severs N, Cohard M. Interleukin 10 reduces the incidence of pancreatitis after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 2001;120:498-505. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 111] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 123] [Article Influence: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 60. | Dumot JA, Conwell DL, Zuccaro G, Vargo JJ, Shay SS, Easley KA, Ponsky JL. A randomized, double blind study of interleukin 10 for the prevention of ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:2098-2102. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 59] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 65] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 61. | Sherman S, Cheng CL, Costamagna G, Binmoeller KF, Puespoek A, Aithal GP, Kozarek RA, Chen YK, Van Steenbergen W, Tenner S. Efficacy of recombinant human interleukin-10 in prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in subjects with increased risk. Pancreas. 2009;38:267-274. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 62. | Zheng M, Chen Y, Bai J, Xin Y, Pan X, Zhao L. Meta-analysis of prophylactic allopurinol use in post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2008;37:247-253. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 63. | Bai Y, Gao J, Zhang W, Zou D, Li Z. Meta-analysis: allopurinol in the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2008;28:557-564. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 64. | Nakaji K, Suzumura S, Nakae Y, Kojima K, Kumamoto M, Kozu T. Effects in the control of edema of the papilla of Vater by epinephrine saline irrigation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in an endoscopy center in Japan, 2003 to 2007: exploratory retrospective analysis to evaluate the characteristics of eligible patients with a focus on serum amylase levels. Intern Med. 2009;48:945-952. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 6] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10] [Article Influence: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 65. | Matsushita M, Takakuwa H, Shimeno N, Uchida K, Nishio A, Okazaki K. Epinephrine sprayed on the papilla for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:71-75. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 25] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 66. | Xu LH, Qian JB, Gu LG, Qiu JW, Ge ZM, Lu F, Wang YM, Li YM, Lu HS. Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by epinephrine sprayed on the papilla. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;26:1139-1144. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 67. | Ohashi A, Tamada K, Tomiyama T, Wada S, Higashizawa T, Gotoh Y, Satoh Y, Miyata T, Tano S, Ido K. Epinephrine irrigation for the prevention of pancreatic damage after endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;16:568-571. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 68. | Kapetanos D, Kokozidis G, Christodoulou D, Mistakidis K, Sigounas D, Dimakopoulos K, Kitis G, Tsianos EV. A randomized controlled trial of pentoxifylline for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:513-518. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 14] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 18] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 69. | Sherman S, Alazmi WM, Lehman GA, Geenen JE, Chuttani R, Kozarek RA, Welch WD, Souza S, Pribble J. Evaluation of recombinant platelet-activating factor acetylhydrolase for reducing the incidence and severity of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:462-472. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 9] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 70. | van Westerloo DJ, Rauws EA, Hommes D, de Vos AF, van der Poll T, Powers BL, Fockens P, Dijkgraaf MG, Bruno MJ. Pre-ERCP infusion of semapimod, a mitogen-activated protein kinases inhibitor, lowers post-ERCP hyperamylasemia but not pancreatitis incidence. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:246-254. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 71. | Shah TU, Liddle R, Branch MS, Jowell P, Obando J, Poleski M. Pilot study of aprepitant for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients: a phase II randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial. JOP. 2012;13:514-518. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 72. | Tsujino T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Ito Y, Togawa O, Toda N, Arizumi T, Kogure H, Yamamoto K, Mizuno S. The results of the Tokyo trial of prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with risperidone (Tokyo P3R): a multicenter, randomized, phase II, non-placebo-controlled trial. J Gastroenterol. 2013;48:982-988. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 73. | Andriulli A, Leandro G, Federici T, Ippolito A, Forlano R, Iacobellis A, Annese V. Prophylactic administration of somatostatin or gabexate does not prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: an updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:624-632. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 89] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 95] [Article Influence: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 74. | Lee KT, Lee DH, Yoo BM. The prophylactic effect of somatostatin on post-therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a randomized, multicenter controlled trial. Pancreas. 2008;37:445-448. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 20] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 75. | Chan HH, Lai KH, Lin CK, Tsai WL, Lo GH, Hsu PI, Wei MC, Wang EM. Effect of somatostatin in the prevention of pancreatic complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Chin Med Assoc. 2008;71:605-609. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 10] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 9] [Article Influence: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 76. | Bai Y, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS. Prophylactic octreotide administration does not prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pancreas. 2008;37:241-246. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 21] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 24] [Article Influence: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 77. | Zhang Y, Chen QB, Gao ZY, Xie WF. Meta-analysis: octreotide prevents post-ERCP pancreatitis, but only at sufficient doses. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009;29:1155-1164. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 16] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 15] [Article Influence: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 78. | Omata F, Deshpande G, Tokuda Y, Takahashi O, Ohde S, Carr-Locke DL, Jacobs JL, Mine T, Fukui T. Meta-analysis: somatostatin or its long-acting analogue, octreotide, for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:885-895. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 44] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 79. | Odes HS, Novis BN, Barbezat GO, Bank S. Effect of calcitonin on the serum amylase levels after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Digestion. 1977;16:180-184. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 30] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 80. | Ohnhaus EE, Witzel L, Halter F, Stauffacher W. [The effect of salmon calcitonin on pancreatic enzymes and hormones before and after retrograde cholangiopancreatography]. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1981;111:750-754. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 81. | Seta T, Noguchi Y. Protease inhibitors for preventing complications associated with ERCP: an updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:700-706.e1-2. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 34] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 38] [Article Influence: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 82. | Yuhara H, Ogawa M, Kawaguchi Y, Igarashi M, Shimosegawa T, Mine T. Pharmacologic prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: protease inhibitors and NSAIDs in a meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2013;May 30; Epub ahead of print. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 83. | Li S, Cao G, Chen X, Wu T. Low-dose heparin in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:477-481. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 18] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 84. | Fluhr G, Mayerle J, Weber E, Aghdassi A, Simon P, Gress T, Seufferlein T, Mössner J, Stallmach A, Rösch T. Pre-study protocol MagPEP: a multicentre randomized controlled trial of magnesium sulphate in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13:11. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 11] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 14] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 85. | Moretó M, Zaballa M, Casado I, Merino O, Rueda M, Ramírez K, Urcelay R, Baranda A. Transdermal glyceryl trinitrate for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: A randomized double-blind trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:1-7. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 67] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 75] [Article Influence: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 86. | Sudhindran S, Bromwich E, Edwards PR. Prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of glyceryl trinitrate in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced pancreatitis. Br J Surg. 2001;88:1178-1182. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 56] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 64] [Article Influence: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 87. | Kaffes AJ, Bourke MJ, Ding S, Alrubaie A, Kwan V, Williams SJ. A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of transdermal glyceryl trinitrate in ERCP: effects on technical success and post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:351-357. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 46] [Article Influence: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 88. | Beauchant M, Ingrand P, Favriel JM, Dupuychaffray JP, Capony P, Moindrot H, Barthet M, Escourrou J, Plane C, Barrioz T. Intravenous nitroglycerin for prevention of pancreatitis after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Endoscopy. 2008;40:631-636. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22] [Article Influence: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 89. | Nøjgaard C, Hornum M, Elkjaer M, Hjalmarsson C, Heyries L, Hauge T, Bakkevold K, Andersen PK, Matzen P. Does glyceryl nitrate prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:e31-e37. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 23] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 26] [Article Influence: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 90. | Korkmaz H, Temel T. Incidence, Risk Factors, Recognition and Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. IJMMS. 2013;1:4-9. [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 91. | Tympner F, Rösch W. Effect of secretin and gabexate-mesilate (synthetic protease inhibitor) on serum amylase level after ERCP. Z Gastroenterol. 1982;20:688-693. [PubMed] [Cited in This Article: ] |
| 92. | Jowell PS, Branch MS, Fein SH, Purich ED, Kilaru R, Robuck G, d’Almada P, Baillie J. Intravenous synthetic secretin reduces the incidence of pancreatitis induced by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Pancreas. 2011;40:533-539. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 17] [Article Influence: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 93. | Brandes JW, Scheffer B, Lorenz-Meyer H, Körst HA, Littmann KP. ERCP: Complications and prophylaxis a controlled study. Endoscopy. 1981;13:27-30. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 27] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34] [Article Influence: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 94. | Räty S, Sand J, Pulkkinen M, Matikainen M, Nordback I. Post-ERCP pancreatitis: reduction by routine antibiotics. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5:339-345; discussion 345. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 40] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 49] [Article Influence: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 95. | Katsinelos P, Kountouras J, Paroutoglou G, Beltsis A, Mimidis K, Zavos C. Intravenous N-acetylcysteine does not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:105-111. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 38] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 43] [Article Influence: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 96. | Wollschläger S, Pätzold K, Bulang T, Meissner D, Porst H. [Effect of preventive selenium administration on development of ERCP-induced acute pancreatitis]. Med Klin (Munich). 1999;94 Suppl 3:81-83. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 8] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 12] [Article Influence: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 97. | Lavy A, Karban A, Suissa A, Yassin K, Hermesh I, Ben-Amotz A. Natural beta-carotene for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2004;29:e45-e50. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 19] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |
| 98. | Gu WJ, Wei CY, Yin RX. Antioxidant supplementation for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr J. 2013;12:23. [PubMed] [DOI] [Cited in This Article: ] [Cited by in Crossref: 17] [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21] [Article Influence: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis (0)] |