Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy After Double Guidewire Technique Was Noninferior to Primary Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy in Difficult Biliary Cannulation.
Adverse effects
Catheterization
Cholangiopancreatography
Endoscopic
Endoscopic Rretrograde
Humans
Retrospective Studies
Sphincterotomy
Journal
Digestive diseases and sciences
ISSN: 1573-2568
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7902782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Apr 2024
09 Apr 2024
Historique:
received:
18
10
2023
accepted:
25
01
2024
medline:
10
4
2024
pubmed:
10
4
2024
entrez:
9
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
When unintentional pancreatic duct access occurs during difficult biliary cannulation, the double guidewire (DGW) or transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) may be utilized. DGW can be easily switched to TPS due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. However, the efficacy of TPS after DGW, named sequential DGW-TPS technique, versus primary TPS has not been assessed. Our aim was to compare the benefits and adverse events of sequential DGW-TPS technique and primary TPS. We performed a comparative retrospective cohort study that enrolled a total of 117 patients with native papillae. The patients were divided into one of 2 groups according to the primary bile duct access technique (sequential DGW-TPS or primary TPS), both with pancreatic stenting. Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 84 patients were grouped into sequential DGW-TPS and 33 into primary TPS. The overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 4.3% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences were observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.927), PEP severity (P = 1.000), first biliary cannulation success (P = 0.621), overall cannulation success (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia incidence (P = 0.241), elevated amylase levels (P = 0.881), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.185). Furthermore, these results remained consistent in multivariable regression analysis. The sequential DGW-TPS technique showed a comparable safety and biliary cannulation success rate to primary TPS in difficult biliary cannulation. Given the potential long-term complications associated with TPS, DGW should be first if inadvertent pancreatic access occurs, with TPS serving as second only if DGW fails.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
When unintentional pancreatic duct access occurs during difficult biliary cannulation, the double guidewire (DGW) or transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) may be utilized. DGW can be easily switched to TPS due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. However, the efficacy of TPS after DGW, named sequential DGW-TPS technique, versus primary TPS has not been assessed.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Our aim was to compare the benefits and adverse events of sequential DGW-TPS technique and primary TPS.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a comparative retrospective cohort study that enrolled a total of 117 patients with native papillae. The patients were divided into one of 2 groups according to the primary bile duct access technique (sequential DGW-TPS or primary TPS), both with pancreatic stenting.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 84 patients were grouped into sequential DGW-TPS and 33 into primary TPS. The overall post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 4.3% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences were observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.927), PEP severity (P = 1.000), first biliary cannulation success (P = 0.621), overall cannulation success (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia incidence (P = 0.241), elevated amylase levels (P = 0.881), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.185). Furthermore, these results remained consistent in multivariable regression analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The sequential DGW-TPS technique showed a comparable safety and biliary cannulation success rate to primary TPS in difficult biliary cannulation. Given the potential long-term complications associated with TPS, DGW should be first if inadvertent pancreatic access occurs, with TPS serving as second only if DGW fails.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38594433
doi: 10.1007/s10620-024-08319-7
pii: 10.1007/s10620-024-08319-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Laquiere A, Privat J, Jacques J et al. Early double-guidewire versus repeated single-guidewire technique to facilitate selective bile duct cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022;54:120–127. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1395-7485 .
doi: 10.1055/a-1395-7485
pubmed: 33860484
Thiruvengadam NR, Forde KA, Ma GK et al. Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis in high- and low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 2016;151:288–297. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.04.048 .
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.04.048
pubmed: 27215656
Berry R, Han JY, Tabibian JH. Difficult biliary cannulation: Historical perspective, practical updates, and guide for the endoscopist. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019;11:5–21. https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i1.5 .
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i1.5
pubmed: 30705728
pmcid: 6354112
Jang SI, Kim DU, Cho JH et al. Primary needle-knife fistulotomy versus conventional cannulation method in a high-risk cohort of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115:616–624. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000480 .
doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000480
pubmed: 31913191
Op DWM, Schirra J, Schulz C et al. Biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: how to tackle the difficult papilla. Dig Dis 2022;40:85–96. https://doi.org/10.1159/000515692 .
doi: 10.1159/000515692
Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2016;48:657–683. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-108641 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-108641
pubmed: 27299638
Huang L, Yu QS, Zhang Q et al. Comparison between double-guidewire technique and transpancreatic sphincterotomy technique for difficult biliary cannulation. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:381–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12387 .
doi: 10.1111/den.12387
pubmed: 25284147
Laquiere A, Desilets E, Belle A et al. Double guidewire endoscopic technique, a major evolution in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a retrospective study with historical controls comparing two therapeutic sequential strategies. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:182–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12740 .
doi: 10.1111/den.12740
pubmed: 27638137
Pin F, Conti BM, Crino SF et al. Double guide-wire technique versus transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation: Real life experience from a referral center. Dig Liver Dis. 2022;54:1548–1553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2022.07.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.07.011
pubmed: 35931625
Sundaram S, Jagtap N. Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy: justified or overkill? Endoscopy. 2021;53:985. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1408-3258 .
doi: 10.1055/a-1408-3258
pubmed: 34438459
Sugiyama H, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y et al. Transpancreatic precut papillotomy versus double-guidewire technique in difficult biliary cannulation: prospective randomized study. Endoscopy. 2018;50:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-118000 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-118000
pubmed: 29020689
Kylanpaa L, Koskensalo V, Saarela A et al. Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy versus double guidewire in difficult biliary cannulation: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2021;53:1011–1019. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1327-2025 .
doi: 10.1055/a-1327-2025
pubmed: 33440441
Facciorusso A, Ramai D, Gkolfakis P et al. Comparative efficacy of different methods for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;95:60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.010
pubmed: 34543649
Kylanpaa L, Koskensalo V, Udd M et al. Reply to Sundaram and Jagtap. Endoscopy. 2021;53:986. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1408-3754 .
doi: 10.1055/a-1408-3754
pubmed: 34438460
Shi QQ, Ning XY, Zhan LL et al. Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:7040–7048. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i22.7040 .
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i22.7040
pubmed: 24944500
pmcid: 4051949
Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039
pubmed: 21295641
Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:983–989. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-125-12-199612150-00009 .
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-125-12-199612150-00009
pubmed: 8967710
IAP, Working Group. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2013;13:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pan.2013.07.063 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.07.063
Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027
pubmed: 20189503
Zou XP, Leung JW, Li YH et al. Comparison of sequential pancreatic duct guidewire placement technique and needle knife precut sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation. J Dig Dis. 2015;16:741–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12300 .
doi: 10.1111/1751-2980.12300
pubmed: 26562073
Kim CW, Chang JH, Kim TH et al. Sequential double-guidewire technique and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:18–24. https://doi.org/10.4103/1319-3767.151212 .
doi: 10.4103/1319-3767.151212
pubmed: 25672234
pmcid: 4355857
Elmunzer BJ. Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:749–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12908 .
doi: 10.1111/den.12908
pubmed: 28636774
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2023.03.023 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.03.023
pubmed: 37004815
Goff JS. Common bile duct pre-cut sphincterotomy: transpancreatic sphincter approach. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;41:502–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0016-5107(05)80011-2 .
doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(05)80011-2
pubmed: 7615231
Buscaglia JM, Kalloo AN. Pancreatic sphincterotomy: technique, indications, and complications. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:4064–4071. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v13.i30.4064 .
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i30.4064
pubmed: 17696223
pmcid: 4205306
Kozarek R. Flail, flay, or fail: needle-knife versus transpancreatic sphincterotomy to access the difficult-to-cannulate bile duct during ERCP. Endoscopy. 2017;49:842–843. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-117045 .
doi: 10.1055/s-0043-117045
pubmed: 28850977