Can topical epinephrine application to the papilla prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Results from a double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial

Background and study aims Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP.Patients and methods This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine.Results Of the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009).Conclusion Spraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP.Trial registration number This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112)

Chronic coronary syndromes without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes: the CLARIFY registry

Background and Aims: It has been reported that patients without standard modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (SMuRFs—diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, and smoking) presenting with first myocardial infarction (MI), especially women, have a higher in-hospital mortality than patients with risk factors, and possibly a lower long-term risk provided they survive the post-infarct period. This study aims to explore the long-term outcomes of SMuRF-less patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: CLARIFY is an observational cohort of 32 703 outpatients with stable CAD enrolled between 2009 and 2010 in 45 countries. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with and without SMuRFs were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of 5-year CV death or non-fatal MI. Secondary outcomes were 5-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE—CV death, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke). Results: Among 22 132 patients with complete risk factor and outcome information, 977 (4.4%) were SMuRF-less. Age, sex, and time since CAD diagnosis were similar across groups. SMuRF-less patients had a lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI (5.43% [95% CI 4.08–7.19] vs. 7.68% [95% CI 7.30–8.08], P = 0.012), all-cause mortality, and MACE. Similar results were found after adjustments. Clinical event rates increased steadily with the number of SMuRFs. The benefit of SMuRF-less status was particularly pronounced in women. Conclusions: SMuRF-less patients with stable CAD have a substantial but significantly lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI than patients with risk factors. The risk of CV outcomes increases steadily with the number of risk factors