Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: Analysis of Trends and Outcomes From the National Inpatient Sample Database.

GOALS: We aimed to assess outcomes of patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent therapeutic or diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to determine whether these patients had different outcomes relative to patients without cirrhosis. BACKGROUND: ERCP is an important procedure for treatment of biliary and pancreatic disease. However, ERCP is relatively technically difficult to perform when compared with procedures such as esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy. Little is known about how ERCP use affects patients with liver cirrhosis. STUDY: Using patient records from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database, we identified adult patients who underwent ERCP between 2009 and 2014 using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision coding and stratified data into 2 groups: patients with liver cirrhosis and those without liver cirrhosis. We compared baseline characteristics and multiple outcomes between groups and compared outcomes of diagnostic versus therapeutic ERCP in patients with cirrhosis. A multivariate regression model was used to estimate the association of cirrhosis with ERCP outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1,038,258 hospitalizations of patients who underwent ERCP between 2009 and 2014 were identified, of which 31,294 had cirrhosis and 994,681 did not have cirrhosis. Of the patients with cirrhosis, 21,835 (69.8%) received therapeutic ERCP and 9459 (30.2%) received diagnostic ERCP. Patients with cirrhosis had more ERCP-associated hemorrhages (2.5% vs. 1.2%; P <0.0001) compared with noncirrhosis patients but had lower incidence of perforations (0.1% vs. 0.2%; P <0.0001) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (8.6% vs. 7%; P <0.0001). Cholecystitis was the same between groups (2.3% vs. 2.3%; P <0.0001). In patients with cirrhosis, those who received therapeutic ERCP had higher post-ERCP pancreatitis (7.9% vs. 5.1%; P <0.0001) and ERCP-associated hemorrhage (2.7% vs. 2.1%; P <0.0001) but lower incidences of perforation and cholecystitis (0.1% vs. 0.3%; P <0.0001) and cholecystitis (1.9 vs. 3.1%; P <0.0001) compared with those who received diagnostic ERCP. CONCLUSIONS: Use of therapeutic ERCP in patients with liver cirrhosis may lead to higher risk of complications such as pancreatitis and postprocedure hemorrhage, whereas diagnostic ERCP may increase the risk of pancreatitis and cholecystitis in patients with cirrhosis. Comorbidities in cirrhosis patients may increase the risk of post-ERCP complications and mortality; therefore, use of ERCP in cirrhosis patients should be carefully considered, and further studies on this patient population are needed.

Increased Morbidity and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients with Liver Injury.

BACKGROUND: There is a high prevalence of liver injury (LI) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, few large-scale studies assessing risk factors and clinical outcomes in these patients have been done. AIMS: To evaluate the risk factors and clinical outcomes associated with LI in a large inpatient cohort of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Adult patients with COVID-19 between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were included. LI was defined as peak levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase that were 3 times the ULN or peak levels in alkaline phosphatase/total bilirubin that were 2 times the ULN. Mild elevation in liver enzymes (MEL) was defined as abnormal peak liver enzyme levels lower than the threshold for LI. Patients with MEL and LI were compared to a control group comprising patients with normal liver enzymes throughout hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 1935 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 1031 (53.2%) had MEL and 396 (20.5%) had LI. Compared to control patients, MEL and LI groups contained proportionately more men. Patients in the MEL cohort were older compared to control, and African-Americans were more highly represented in the LI group. Patients with LI had an increased risk of mortality (relative risk [RR] 4.26), intensive care unit admission (RR, 5.52), intubation (RR, 11.01), 30-day readmission (RR, 1.81), length of hospitalization, and intensive care unit stay (10.49 and 10.06 days, respectively) compared to control. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that patients with COVID-19 who presented with LI had a significantly increased risk of mortality and poor clinical outcomes.

Vitamin-D Toxicity And Other Non-Malignant Causes Of Hypercalcemia: A Retrospective Study At A Tertiary Care Hospital In Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: Hypercalcemia is a common clinical problem; primary hyperparathyroidism and malignancy is commonest causes of hypercalcemia. Aetiology of hypercalcemia are changing, causes that were diseases of the past like Vitamin-D toxicity and milk alkali syndrome are observed more often. Vitamin-D deficiency is an important problem and overzealous replacement of Vitamin-D has been observed, suspected to cause toxicity. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients admitted at the Aga Khan University Hospital from January 2008 to December 2013 with hypercalcemia. We reviewed the electronic health records for laboratory and radiological studies, and discharge summaries to establish the cause of hypercalcemia. Patients with solid tumour malignancy were excluded from the analysis. The treatment records and hospital course of patients diagnosed with Vitamin-D toxicity were also reviewed. RESULTS: Primary hyperparathyroidism was the most common cause of hypercalcemia comprising 41 (28.2 %) patients. Vitamin-D toxicity was present in 25 (17.3%) and probable Vitamin-D toxicity 11 (7.6 %) inpatients. Vitamin-D toxicity and probable Vitamin-D toxicity together comprised 36 (24.8%) cases. Other causes of hypercalcemia included multiple myeloma 18 (12.4%) patients, tuberculosis 6 (4.1%) patients, chronic kidney disease6 (4.1%) cases, sarcoidosis 4 (2.7%) and lymphoma 3 (2.0%) patients. In 29(20%) patients a cause of hypercalcemia could not be determined and were labelled as undiagnosed cases. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin-D toxicity was the second commonest cause of hypercalcemia after primary hyperparathyroidism. Knowledge of the prevalent and emerging causes of hypercalcemia is important for prompt diagnosis and treatment..

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention using topical epinephrine: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Multiple drugs and techniques have been studied for the prevention of PEP. Topical epinephrine has shown mixed results and is still not widely accepted as an alternative for prevention of PEP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical epinephrine in preventing PEP. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching Cochrane library database, Embase and PubMed up to August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for prevention of PEP. Outcomes included prevention of PEP with use of topical epinephrine and evaluation of whether addiing epinephrine provides any additional benefit in preventing PEP. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Results Eight studies, including six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, RR = 0.63 (CI 0.32-1.24) with heterogeneity (I2 = 72 %). However, on a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine significantly decreases the risk of PEP when compared to placebo alone (means no intervention was done including no rectal indomethacin)., RR = 0.32 (0.18-0.57). In another subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in using topical epinephrine along with rectal indomethacin in preventing PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone RR = 0.87 (0.46-1.64). Conclusion Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional benefit in preventing PEP when used in conjunction with rectal indomethacin. In subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine appeared to decrease risk of PEP in the absence of rectal indomethacin, and could be considered when rectal indomethacin is unavailable or if there is a contraindication to its use.