Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis (APEC): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Web-Based Educational Intervention for Patients With Uninvestigated Dyspepsia Referred for Upper Gastrointestinal Tract Endoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract endoscopy for uninvestigated dyspepsia is low, and its clinical implications are limited. There is an unmet need for better strategies to reduce the volume of upper GI tract endoscopic procedures for dyspepsia. Objective: To study the effectiveness of a web-based educational intervention as a tool to reduce upper GI tract endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial enrolled participants between November 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, with follow-up 52 weeks after randomization, at 4 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants included patients with uninvestigated dyspeptic symptoms who were referred for upper GI tract endoscopy by their general health care clinician without prior consultation of a gastroenterologist. A total of 119 patients, aged 18 to 69 years, were included. Patients were excluded if any of the following red flag symptoms were present: (indirect) signs of upper GI tract hemorrhage (hematemesis, melena, hematochezia, or anemia), unintentional weight loss of 5% or higher of normal body weight during a period of 6 to 12 months, persistent vomiting, dysphagia, or jaundice. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to education (intervention) or upper GI tract endoscopy (control). Education consisted of a self-managed web-based educational intervention, containing information on gastric function, dyspepsia, and upper GI tract endoscopy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in the proportion of upper GI tract endoscopy procedures between those who received access to the web-based educational intervention and those who did not at 12 weeks and 52 weeks after randomization, analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included quality of life (Nepean Dyspepsia Index) and symptom severity (Patient Assessment of Gastrointestinal Disorders Symptom Severity Index) measured at baseline and 12 weeks. Results: Of 119 patients included (median age, 48 years [interquartile range, 37-56 years]; 48 men [40%]), 62 were randomized to web-based education (intervention) and 57 to upper GI tract endoscopy (control). Significantly fewer patients compared with controls underwent upper GI tract endoscopy after using the web-based educational intervention: 24 (39%) vs 47 (82%) (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64; P < .001). Symptom severity and quality of life improved equivalently in both groups. One additional patient in the intervention group required upper GI tract endoscopy during follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: Findings of this study indicate that web-based patient education is an effective tool to decrease the need for upper GI tract endoscopy in uninvestigated dyspepsia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03205319.