Use of thiopurines is not a risk factor for post-ERC pancreatitis in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.

INTRODUCTION: Risk of post-ERC pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is 1-7.8%. PSC is often associated with inflammatory bowel disease and autoimmune hepatitis, which are usually treated with thiopurines. The role of thiopurines in PEP risk is still unclear. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the thiopurine use in PEP. The data of 354 PSC patients who underwent 985 ERCs between 2009 and 2018 were collected. 177 patients treated with thiopurines (study group, SG) and 177 controls (CG) were matched with a propensity score (PSM). Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and generalized linear mixed model were performed. The P-value <0.05 was significant. RESULTS: In matched data, 472 ERCs were performed in SG and 513 in CG. Thiopurines were used in 373/472 (79.0%) ERCs in SG. The PEP rate was 5.3% in SG and 5.7% in CG (p = 0.889). Unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation (OR 1.28, 95%CI 1.07-1.51, p = 0.004), and periampullary diverticulum (OR 4.87, 95%CI 1.72-11.98, p = 0.001) increased the risk of PEP. CONCLUSION: Prior or present thiopurine use did not increase the risk of PEP.

Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy versus double guidewire in difficult biliary cannulation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The purpose of this prospective, randomized, multicenter study was to compare two advanced rescue methods, transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS) and a double-guidewire (DGW) technique, in difficult common bile duct (CBD) cannulation. METHODS: Patients with native papilla and planned CBD cannulation were recruited at eight Scandinavian hospitals. An experienced endoscopist attempted CBD cannulation with wire-guided cannulation. If the procedure fulfilled the definition of difficult cannulation and a guidewire entered the pancreatic duct, randomization to either TPBS or to DGW was performed. If the randomized method failed, any method available was performed. The primary end point was the frequency of PEP and the secondary end points included successful cannulation with the randomized method. RESULTS: In total, 1190 patients were recruited and 203 (17.1 %) were randomized according to the study protocol (TPBS 104 and DGW 99). PEP developed in 14/104 patients (13.5 %) in the TPBS group and 16/99 patients (16.2 %) in the DGW group (P = 0.69). No difference existed in PEP severity between the groups. The rate of successful deep biliary cannulation was significantly higher with TPBS (84.6 % [88/104]) than with DGW (69.7 % [69/99]; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In difficult biliary cannulation, there was no difference in PEP rate between TPBS and DGW techniques. TPBS is a good alternative in cases of difficult cannulation when the guidewire is in the pancreatic duct.

Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy for biliary access is safe also on a long-term scale.

BACKGROUND: Transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy (TPBS) is an advanced cannulation method for accessing common bile duct (CBD) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). If CBD cannulation is difficult, an endoscopist can open the septum between the pancreatic and biliary duct with a sphincterotome to gain access. Long-term results of this procedure are unclear. We wanted to evaluate the short- and long-term complications of TPBS on patients with native papilla and benign indication for ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ERCPs performed in Helsinki University Hospital between 2007 and 2013 were reviewed. The study group comprised 143 consecutive patients with TPBS and 140 controls (CG). Data were collected from patient records and a phone survey was performed as a follow-up ≥ 4 years after the index ERCP. RESULTS: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) developed in seven patients (4.9%) in TPBS and one patient (0.7%) in CG (p = 0.067). The rates of other acute complications were similar between the groups. ERCP ended with no access to CBD in four cases (2.8%) in TPBS. The median length of follow-up was 6 years in TPBS and 7 years in CG. During this period, three patients (2.1%) in TPBS and six patients (4.3%) in CG suffered from acute pancreatitis (AP) (p = 0.238). One (0.7%) patient in CG and none in TPBS developed chronic pancreatitis (CP). Abdominal pain was suffered by ten patients (6.9%) in TPBS and twelve patients (8.6%) in CG daily, whereas by six patients (4.2%) in TPBS and twelve patients (8.6%) in CG weekly. CONCLUSION: TPBS is a useful procedure, with acceptable complication rates. No significant difference occurred between the groups when evaluating the short-term or long-term complications with a follow-up period of four to 10 years. Additionally, no significant differences occurred in upper abdominal pain, episodes of AP, or development of CP.

Diclofenac does not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiography.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends rectal indomethacin or diclofenac before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, data on the prophylactic effect in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are lacking. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study. In 2009-2018, a total of 2000 ERCPs were performed in 931 patients with PSC. Case procedures (N = 1000 after November 2013) were performed after administration of rectal diclofenac. Control procedures (N = 1000 before November 2013) were performed with the same indication but without diclofenac. Acute post-ERCP pancreatitis and other ERCP-related adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 49 (4.9%) procedures in the diclofenac group and 62 (6.2%) procedures in the control group (p = 0.241). No difference existed between the groups in terms of the severity of pancreatitis or any other acute AEs. The risk of pancreatitis was elevated in patients with native papilla: 11.4% in the diclofenac group and 8.7% in the control group (p = 0.294). In adjusted logistic regression, diclofenac did not reduce the risk of pancreatitis (odds ratio (OR) = 1.074, 95% confidence interval 0.708-1.629, p = 0.737). However, in generalised estimation equations with the advanced model, diclofenac seemed to diminish the risk of pancreatitis (OR = 0.503) but not significantly (p = 0.110). CONCLUSION: In this large patient cohort in a low-risk unit, diclofenac does not seem to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with PSC. The trend in the pancreatitis rate after ERCP is decreasing. The evaluation of the benefits of diclofenac among PSC patients warrants a randomised controlled study targeted to high-risk patients and procedures.