Pharmacological prophylaxis versus pancreatic duct stenting plus pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients: a randomized trial.
Adult
Aged
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
/ therapeutic use
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
/ adverse effects
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Indomethacin
/ therapeutic use
Isosorbide Dinitrate
/ therapeutic use
Male
Middle Aged
Pancreatic Ducts
/ surgery
Pancreatitis
/ etiology
Stents
Vasodilator Agents
/ therapeutic use
Journal
Endoscopy
ISSN: 1438-8812
Titre abrégé: Endoscopy
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0215166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2019
10 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
28
8
2019
medline:
25
6
2020
entrez:
28
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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 ( 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.
Sections du résumé
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 (
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.
Substances chimiques
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
0
Vasodilator Agents
0
Isosorbide Dinitrate
IA7306519N
Indomethacin
XXE1CET956
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02368795']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Equivalence Trial
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
915-921Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None