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).

Pocket ultrasound device as a complement to physical examination for ascites evaluation and guided paracentesis.

The pocket ultrasound device (PUD) is a new tool that may be of use in the early detection of ascites. Abdominal ultrasound-guided paracentesis has been reported to decrease the rate of complications due to the procedure, but must be performed in a healthcare setting; this new tool may be a useful on an ambulatory basis. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic usefulness of the PUD in the diagnosis of ascites and the safety of guided paracentesis. We conducted a retrospective study that included adult patients suspected of having ascites and in whom an evaluation was performed with the PUD to identify it. Concordance with abdominal ultrasound (AUS) was determined with the Kappa coefficient. Sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp) and likelihood ratios (LR) were determined and compared with physical examination, AUS, computed tomography and procurement of fluid by paracentesis. Complications resulting from the guided paracentesis were analyzed. 89 participants were included and 40 underwent a paracentesis. The PUD for ascites detection had 95.8 % Se, 81.8 % Sp, 5.27 +LR and 0.05 -LR. It had a concordance with AUS of 0.781 (p < 0.001). Technical problems during the guided paracentesis were present in only two participants (5 %) and three patients (7.5 %) developed minor complications that required no further intervention. There were no severe complications or deaths. This study suggests that the PUD is a reliable tool for ascites detection as a complement to physical examination and appears to be a safe method to perform guided paracentesis.