Does same session EUS-guided tissue acquisition and ERCP increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction?

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. Results: We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Conclusion: Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Does same session EUS-guided tissue acquisition and ERCP increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction?

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. Results: We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Conclusion: Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial

Background Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.Methods FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155.Findings Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.53-1.33, p=0.53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.59-1.64; p=1.00), ERCP-related complications (0.90, 0.62-1.31; p=0.62), intensive care unit admission (0.37, 0.07-1.80; p=0.22), and 30-day mortality (0.95, 0.50-1.83; p=1.00).Interpretation Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog