Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-based, Point-of-Care Risk Calculator for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Prophylaxis Selection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A robust model of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk is not currently available. We aimed to develop a machine learning-based tool for PEP risk prediction to aid in clinical decision-making related to periprocedural prophylaxis selection and post-procedural monitoring. METHODS: Feature selection, model training, and validation were performed using patient-level data from 12 randomized controlled trials. A gradient-boosted machine (GBM) model was trained to estimate PEP risk and the performance of the resulting model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with 5-fold cross-validation. A web-based clinical decision-making tool was created, and a prospective pilot study was performed using data from ERCPs performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital over a one-month period. RESULTS: A total of 7389 patients were included in the GBM with an 8.6% rate of PEP. The model was trained on twenty PEP risk factors and 5 prophylactic interventions (rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAID], aggressive hydration, combined rectal NSAID and aggressive hydration, pancreatic duct [PD] stenting, and combined rectal NSAID and PD stenting). The resulting GBM model had an AUC of 0.70 (65% specificity, 65% sensitivity, 95% negative predictive value, 15% positive predictive value). A total of 135 patients were included in the prospective pilot study, resulting in an AUC of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a novel machine learning-based PEP risk estimation tool with high negative predictive value to aid in prophylaxis selection and identify patients at low risk who may not require extended post-procedure monitoring.

Prevalence of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency at 12 months after acute pancreatitis: a prospective, multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Background: Exocrine Pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) occurs following acute pancreatitis (AP) at variably reported rates and with unclear recovery timeline. The aim of this study was to establish the prevalence and predictors of EPI at 12 months after AP in a prospective cohort. Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal cohort study, adult participants (≥18 years) admitted to the hospital with an AP attack (defined by Revised Atlanta Classification) were enrolled in a United States multi-centre longitudinal cohort (Sites: The Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, and Johns Hopkins University). Patients were excluded if they had pancreatic cancer, chronic pancreatitis, or malabsorptive disease (including previously diagnosed EPI). Participant data was obtained by interview and by review of the electronic medical record. EPI was assessed by stool fecal elastase (FE-1) levels collected at baseline, 3 months, and 12 months (primary endpoint). EPI was defined by FE-1 <200 µg/g; severe FE-1 level ≤100 µg/g; mild FE-1 101-200 µg/g. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of EPI at 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03063398. Findings: EPI was observed in 29 (34.1%) of the 85 participants [44 (51.8%) male, mean age 54.7 ± 14.1 years] who provided stool samples at 12 months. For the study overall, participants were recruited between June 22, 2017 and October 18, 2021. A total of 5794 individuals were screened, 311 of whom were eligible for the study. 112 participants provided stool samples at baseline, 79 completed stool samples at 3 months, and 85 completed samples at 12 months. 64 participants included samples at all 3 timepoints. In univariable analysis, factors significantly associated with EPI at 12 months included recurrent (versus index) AP, pre-existing diabetes, alcohol, and idiopathic etiologies, and increasing severity of AP. In multivariable analysis, the odds of having EPI at 12 months increased 4-fold with idiopathic AP etiology (Odds Ratio 4.095, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.418, 11.826), and 3-fold with moderately severe or severe AP (Odds Ratio 3.166, 95% CI 1.156, 8.670), and baseline diabetes mellitus (Odds Ratio 3.217, 95% CI 1.113, 9.298). Even individuals with an index mild attack of AP (n = 39) developed severe EPI at 12 months (prevalence 12.8%). Interpretation: EPI as diagnosed by FE-1 is present in over one third of prospectively assessed patients at 12 months post-AP. Since EPI develops in patients with mild AP, investigations are needed to understand the mechanisms of injury and identify methods for tailored screening. Funding: This study was supported by an Investigator Initiated Research Grant from AbbVie, Inc.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Islet Isolation Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Total Pancreatectomy With Islet Autotransplantation in the POST Consortium.

BACKGROUND: In total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT), a greater number of islets transplanted produces more favorable outcomes. We aimed to determine predictors of islet isolation outcomes. METHODS: We investigated factors associated with islet isolation outcomes expressed as islet number (IN), islet equivalents (IEQ; standardized to an islet with 150 µm diameter), IN/kg, or IEQ/kg using data from the multicenter Prospective Observational Study of TPIAT. Single-predictor linear regression was used to estimate the association of individual patient and disease characteristics with islet isolation outcomes, and augmented backward elimination was used to select variables to include in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, only elevated hemoglobin A1c was associated with worse outcomes for all measures (P < 0.001 for all). Total IEQ obtained for transplant was higher for participants with Hispanic ethnicity (P = 0.002) or overweight status pre-TPIAT (P < 0.001) and lower with non-White race (P = 0.03), genetic pancreatitis (P = 0.02), history of lateral pancreaticojejunostomy (P = 0.03), and presence of atrophy (P = 0.006) or ductal changes (P = 0.014) on imaging. IEQ/kg was higher in females (P = 0.01) and Hispanic participants (P = 0.046) and generally lower with older age (nonlinear association, P < 0.001) and pancreatic atrophy (P < 0.001) on imaging. Total IN and IN/kg showed trends similar, but not identical, to IEQ and IEQ/kg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patient demographics and certain pancreatic disease features were associated with outcomes from islet isolation. Hemoglobin A1c before TPIAT was the metabolic testing measure most strongly associated with islet isolation results.

Developing the EPI Symptom Questionnaire (EPI-SQ): a qualitative study to understand the symptom experience of patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI).

BACKGROUND: Symptom assessment is the key factor in determining disease status and optimal management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). There is a need for a standardized patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire to assess symptoms in patients diagnosed with EPI. The purpose of this qualitative study was to increase understanding of the EPI symptom experience from the patients' perspective, and to develop and evaluate the content validity of the EPI Symptom Questionnaire (EPI-SQ) in US patients with EPI. METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews (Phase I) were conducted to understand the symptom experience in patients with a clinical diagnosis of EPI (i.e., fecal pancreatic elastase value of ≤ 200 mcg/g based on most recent value) due to chronic pancreatitis or pancreatectomy. The EPI-SQ was developed based on the data extracted from Phase I interviews and feedback from clinical experts. Next, separate cognitive interviews (Phase II) were conducted to evaluate participants' understanding of the instructions, items, response scales, and recall periods of the instrument. RESULTS: During Phase I interviews (n = 21), 19 participants (90%) reported abdominal pain as the most frequent EPI symptom and lifestyle changes were the most frequently endorsed impacts (n = 18; 86%). Phase II results indicated that all participants (n = 7) felt the 12-item EPI-SQ was relevant to their symptom experience and that they understood the items, instructions, and response options as intended. CONCLUSION: The qualitative data from this study support the content validity of the EPI-SQ in measuring EPI symptom severity in US patient populations diagnosed with EPI.

Minimally invasive total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for chronic pancreatitis: the robotic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) treats refractory pain in chronic pancreatitis, prevents episodes of acute exacerbation, and mitigates postoperative brittle diabetes. The minimally invasive (MIS) approach offers a decreased surgical access trauma and enhanced recovery. Having established a laparoscopic TPIAT program, we adopted a robotic approach (R-TPIAT) and studied patient outcomes compared to open TPIAT. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2021, 61 adult patients underwent TPIAT after a comprehensive evaluation (97% chronic pancreatitis). Pancreatic islets were isolated on-site during the procedure. We analyzed and compared intraoperative surgical and islet characteristics, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. RESULTS: MIS-TPIAT was performed in 41 patients (67%, 15 robotic and 26 laparoscopic), and was associated with a shorter mean length of intensive care unit stay compared to open TPIAT (2.9 vs 4.5 days, p = 0.002). R-TPIAT replaced laparoscopic TPIAT in 2017 as the MIS approach of choice and demonstrated decreased blood loss compared to open TPIAT (324 vs 843 mL, p = 0.004), similar operative time (609 vs 562 min), 30-day readmission rate (7% vs 15%), and 90-day complication rate (13% vs 20%). The glycemic outcomes including C-peptide detection at 1-year (73% vs 88%) and insulin dependence at 1-year (75% vs 92%) did not differ. The mean length of hospital stay after R-TPIAT was 8.6 days, shorter than for laparoscopic (11.5 days, p = 0.031) and open TPIAT (12.6 days, p = 0.017). Both MIS approaches had a 1-year mortality rate of 0%. CONCLUSIONS: R-TPIAT was associated with a 33% reduction in length of hospital stay (4-day benefit) compared to open TPIAT. R-TPIAT was similar to open TPIAT on measures of feasibility, safety, pain control, and 1-year glycemic outcomes. Our data suggest that robotic technology, a new component in the multidisciplinary therapy of TPIAT, is poised to develop into the primary surgical approach for experienced pancreatic surgeons.

Development of clinical screening tool for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in patients with definite chronic pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: No simple, accurate diagnostic tests exist for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI), and EPI remains underdiagnosed in chronic pancreatitis (CP). We sought to develop a digital screening tool to assist clinicians to predict EPI in patients with definite CP. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of patients with definite CP with/without EPI. Overall, 49 candidate predictor variables were utilized to train a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) model to rank all predictors and select a parsimonious set of predictors for EPI status. Five-fold cross-validation was used to assess generalizability, and the full CART model was compared with 4 additional predictive models. EPI misclassification rate (mRate) served as primary endpoint metric. RESULTS: 274 patients with definite CP from 6 pancreatitis centers across the United States were included, of which 58 % had EPI based on predetermined criteria. The optimal CART decision tree included 10 variables. The mRate without/with 5-fold cross-validation of the CART was 0.153 (training error) and 0.314 (prediction error), and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.889 and 0.682, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity without/with 5-fold cross-validation was 0.888/0.789 and 0.794/0.535, respectively. A trained second CART without pancreas imaging variables (n = 6), yielded 8 variables. Training error/prediction error was 0.190/0.351; sensitivity was 0.869/0.650, and specificity was 0.728/0.649, each without/with 5-fold cross-validation. CONCLUSION: We developed two CART models that were integrated into one digital screening tool to assess for EPI in patients with definite CP and with two to six input variables needed for predicting EPI status.

Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy and Endoscopy for the Treatment of Pain in Chronic Pancreatitis : A Sham-Controlled, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomized controlled trials have substantiated endoscopic decompression of the pancreatic duct in patients with painful chronic pancreatitis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pain-relieving effect of pancreatic duct decompression in patients with chronic pancreatitis and intraductal stones. DESIGN: 24-week, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03966781). SETTING: Asian Institute of Gastroenterology in India from February 2021 to July 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 106 patients with chronic pancreatitis. INTERVENTION: Combined extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) compared with sham procedures. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was pain relief on a 0- to 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were assessed after 12 and 24 weeks and included 30% pain relief, opioid use, pain-free days, questionaries, and complications to interventions. RESULTS: 52 patients in the ESWL/ERP group and 54 in the sham group were included. At 12 weeks, the ESWL/ERP group showed better pain relief compared with the sham group (mean difference in change, -0.7 [95% CI, -1.3 to 0] on the VAS; P = 0.039). The difference between groups was not sustained at the 24-week follow-up, and no differences were seen for 30% pain relief at 12- or 24-week follow-up. The number of pain-free days was increased (median difference, 16.2 days [CI, 3.9 to 28.5 days]), and the number of days using opioids was reduced (median difference, -5.4 days [CI, -9.9 to -0.9 days]) in the ESWL/ERP group compared with the sham group at 12-week follow-up. Safety outcomes were similar between groups. LIMITATION: Single-center study and limited duration of follow-up. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic pancreatitis and intraductal stones, ESWL with ERP provided modest short-term pain relief. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Asian Institute of Gastroenterology and Aalborg University Hospital.

Development of a novel CT-based index for predicting the number of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) sessions required for successful fragmentation of obstructing pancreatic duct stones.

BACKGROUND & AIM: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is used for the treatment of pancreatic duct stones (PDS) in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP). We aimed to develop a CT based index to predict the required number of ESWL sessions for technical success. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated patients with PDS secondary to CP who underwent ESWL. Technical success was defined as the complete fragmentation of stones to <3 mm. CT features including PDS size, number, location, and density in Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. We analyzed the relationship between PDS characteristics and the number of ESWL sessions required for technical success. A multiple linear regression model was used to combine size and density into the pancreatic duct stone (PDS) index that was translated into a web-based calculator. RESULTS: There were 206 subjects (mean age 38.6 ± 13.7 years, 59.2% male) who underwent ESWL. PDS size showed a moderate correlation with the number of ESWL sessions (r = 0.42, p < 0.01). PDS in the head required a fewer number of sessions in comparison to those in the body (1.4 ± 0.6 vs. 1.6 ± 0.7, p = 0.01). There was a strong correlation between PDS density and the number of ESWL sessions (r = 0.617, p-value <0.01). The PDS index {0.3793 + [0.0009755 x PDS density (HU)] + [0.02549 x PDS size (mm)]} could accurately predict the required number of ESWL sessions with an AUC of 0.872 (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The PDS index is a useful predictor of the number of ESWL sessions needed for technical success that can help in planning and patient counseling.

Predicting the severity of acute pancreatitis: Current approaches and future directions.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a sudden-onset inflammatory disease of the pancreas. The severity of AP is classified into mild, moderate, and severe categories based on the presence and persistence of organ failure. Severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) can be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It requires early recognition for appropriate timely management. Prognostic scores for predicting SAP incorporating many clinical, laboratory, and radiological parameters have been developed in the past. However, all of these prognostic scores have low positive predictive value for SAP and some of these scores require >24 h for assessment. There is a need to develop biomarkers that can accurately identify patients at risk for SAP early in the course of the presentation. In this review, we aim to provide a summary of the most commonly utilized prognostic scores for AP and discuss future directions.

Alterations in exocrine pancreatic function after acute pancreatitis.

Exocrine pancreatic dysfunction (EPD) is a malabsorptive complication of pancreatic disorders that can lead to a host of symptoms ranging from flatulence to diarrhea and contribute to weight loss and metabolic bone disease. It is increasingly recognized to occur after acute pancreatitis (AP), including episodes with mild severity. The risk of developing EPD after AP is influenced by a range of factors, including the degree of acinar cell destruction and inflammation during AP, and persistent structural derangements following AP. In this article, we discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and clinical management of EPD after AP while highlighting key knowledge gaps.

Pancreatic quantitative sensory testing to predict treatment response of endoscopic therapy or surgery for painful chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction: study protocol for an observational clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment for abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) remains challenging in the setting of central nervous system sensitisation, a phenomenon of remodelling and neuronal hyperexcitability resulting from persistent pain stimuli. This is suspected to render affected individuals less likely to respond to conventional therapies. Endotherapy or surgical decompression is offered to patients with pancreatic duct obstruction. However, the response to treatment is unpredictable. Pancreatic quantitative sensory testing (P-QST), an investigative technique of standardised stimulations to test the pain system in CP, has been used for phenotyping patients into three mutually exclusive groups: no central sensitisation, segmental sensitisation (pancreatic viscerotome) and widespread hyperalgesia suggestive of supraspinal central sensitisation. We will test the predictive capability of the pretreatment P-QST phenotype to predict the likelihood of pain improvement following invasive treatment for painful CP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This observational clinical trial will enrol 150 patients from the University of Pittsburgh, Johns Hopkins and Indiana University. Participants will undergo pretreatment phenotyping with P-QST. Treatment will be pancreatic endotherapy or surgery for clearance of painful pancreatic duct obstruction. PRIMARY OUTCOME: average pain score over the preceding 7 days measured by Numeric Rating Scale at 6 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes will include changes in opioid use during follow-up, and patient-reported outcomes in pain and quality of life at 3, 6 and 12 months after the intervention. Exploratory outcomes will include creation of a model for individualised prediction of response to invasive treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will evaluate the ability of P-QST to predict response to invasive treatment for painful CP and develop a predictive model for individualised prediction of treatment response for widespread use. This trial was approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Data and results will be reported and disseminated in conjunction with National Institutes of Health policies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04996628.

Interventions for Pancreatitis-New Approaches, Knowledge Gaps, and Research Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Workshop.

ABSTRACT: There exists no cure for acute, recurrent acute or chronic pancreatitis and treatments to date have been focused on managing symptoms. A recent workshop held by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) focused on interventions that might disrupt or perhaps even reverse the natural course of this heterogenous disease, aiming to identify knowledge gaps and research opportunities that might inform future funding initiatives for NIDDK. The breadth and variety of identified active or planned clinical trials traverses the spectrum of the disease and was conceptually grouped for the workshop into behavioral, nutritional, pharmacologic and biologic, and mechanical interventions. Cognitive and other behavioral therapies are proven interventions for pain and addiction, but barriers exist to their use. Whilst a disease specific instrument quantifying pain is now validated, an equivalent is lacking for nutrition - and both face challenges in ease and frequency of administration. Multiple pharmacologic agents hold promise. Ongoing development of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) measurements can satisfy Investigative New Drug (IND) regulatory assessments. Despite multiple randomized clinical trials demonstrating benefit, great uncertainty remains regarding patient selection, timing of intervention, and type of mechanical intervention (endoscopic versus surgery). Challenges and opportunities to establish beneficial interventions for patients were identified.

A core outcome set for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years including the use of less invasive techniques, the timing of interventions, nutritional management, and antimicrobial management. This study sought to create a core outcome set (COS) to help shape future research by establishing a minimal set of essential outcomes that will facilitate future comparisons and pooling of data while minimizing reporting bias. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was performed through involvement of ANP content experts. Each expert proposed a list of outcomes for consideration, and the panel anonymously scored the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. Core outcome consensus defined a priori as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 points and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3 points. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds with interclass correlation trends used to determine the end of the study. RESULTS: A total of 19 experts agreed to participate in the study with 16 (84%) participating through study completion. Forty-three outcomes were initially considered with 16 reaching consensuses after four rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final COS included outcomes related to mortality, organ failure, complications, interventions/management, and social factors. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative consensus process, content experts agreed on a COS for the management of ANP. This will help shape future research to generate data suitable for pooling and other statistical analyses that may guide clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Factors Associated With Serial Lipase Measurement in Hospitalized Patients With Acute Pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the factors associated with serial lipase measurement in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: Patients admitted to Johns Hopkins Health System between September 2019 and August 2020 with lipase ≥3 times upper limit normal were prospectively identified. Acute pancreatitis was defined using revised Atlanta criteria. Serial lipase measurement was defined as >2 lipase measurements on consecutive days within 7 days of presentation. RESULTS: There were 294 patients with AP with mean age 52.4 ± 16 years (SD), and 155 (52.7%) were male. A total of 227 (77.2%) were admitted to a medical service. There were 111 (37.7%) who underwent serial lipase measurements. There were 89 (30.8%), 36 (12.2%), 6 (1%), and 40 (13.6%) patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome at time of initial lipase measurement, persistent organ failure, necrosis on admission, and intensive care unit admission. Serial lipase measurements were more likely to be obtained in patients admitted to surgical services (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-13.2; P = 0.01) and nontertiary hospitals (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.9; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: More than one-third of AP patients undergo serial lipase measurements. This practice is more likely to occur on surgical services and in nontertiary hospitals.

Pancreatic duct pressure: A review of technical aspects and clinical significance.

Pancreatic duct pressure (PDP) dynamics comprise an intricately modulated system that helps maintain homeostasis of pancreatic function. It is affected by various factors, including the rate of pancreatic fluid secretion, patency of the ductal system, sphincter of Oddi function, and pancreatic fluid characteristics. Disease states such as acute and chronic pancreatitis can alter the normal PDP dynamics. Ductal hypertension or increased PDP is suspected to be involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic pain, endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and recurrent pancreatitis. This review provides a comprehensive appraisal of the available literature on PDP, including the methods used in the measurement and clinical implications of elevated PDP.

Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Pathophysiology and Prevention.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreato-biliary disorders. Pancreatitis remains the most frequent complication of the ERCP procedure, and it is, therefore, necessary to recognize the pathophysiology and risk factors contributing to the development of pancreatitis and understand the methods to prevent this complication.

Frequent guidewire passage into the pancreatic duct is an independent risk factor for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among high-risk individuals: A post-hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial data.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the patient and procedural risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) among patients receiving rectal indomethacin. METHODS: Data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of high-risk patients undergoing ERCP who received rectal indomethacin with or without topical epinephrine was evaluated. PEP was defined based on the consensus criteria. Pancreatic stenting was excluded to avoid confounding results with the role of epinephrine spray. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify patient and procedural risk factors for PEP. RESULTS: Among 960 patients enrolled in the RCT, the PEP incidence was 6.4%. An increased risk of PEP was seen with age <50 years and female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-4.26), malignant biliary stricture(s) (OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.52-8.10), >2 guidewire passes into the pancreatic duct (PD) (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.43-5.64), and pancreatic brush cytology (OR 6.37, 95% CI 1.10-36.90), whereas a decreased risk of PEP was seen with contrast- over guidewire-assisted cannulation (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.99) and the use of lactated Ringer's (LR) over other fluid types (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27-0.98). There was a significant trend between the number of guidewire passes into the PD and PEP risk (P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: More than two guidewire passes into the PD and pancreatic brush cytology increased while the use of LR decreased the risk of PEP among high-risk patients receiving rectal indomethacin. Pancreatic stent placement and/or LR should be considered in patients with >2 guidewire passes into the PD.