What has changed and remained the same in the past 55 years regarding the prediction and prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis?

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mamoru Takenaka, Masatoshi Kudo
{"title":"What has changed and remained the same in the past 55 years regarding the prediction and prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis?","authors":"Mamoru Takenaka,&nbsp;Masatoshi Kudo","doi":"10.1111/den.15025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Although 55 years have passed since endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was first reported in 1968,<span><sup>1</sup></span> post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical challenge. A systematic review of 108 randomized controlled trials conducted between 1977 and 2012 revealed a 9.7% incidence of PEP among 13,296 patients in the control group.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Further, a prospective multicenter observational study involving 3739 cases reported a PEP incidence of 6.9%.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Notably, several studies have documented an increasing trend in PEP incidence over time. An analysis of 1.22 million hospitalizations in the United States from 2011 to 2017 showed rising hospitalization and fatality rates associated with PEP.<span><sup>4</sup></span> This trend may be attributed to the development and increased use of new therapeutic devices such as metal stents and cholangioscopes over the past 55 years. Meanwhile, there has been significant progress in understanding and preventing PEP, with studies identifying predictive factors and preventive strategies for PEP. Unlike 55 years ago, clinicians can now assess patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP before ERCP and consider appropriate preventive measures. However, effective prediction and prevention require a comprehensive understanding of the latest advancements.</p><p>In this issue of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>, Kato <i>et al</i>. present an in-depth review titled “Current status and issues for prediction and prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.”<span><sup>5</sup></span> This article explores the latest prediction models, scoring systems, and newly identified patient factors. The following is a summary of changes and enduring aspects regarding PEP over the past 55 years.</p><p>In the early days of ERCP, knowledge about the risk factors for PEP was limited. There was no awareness that groups, such as young women, were at higher risk of developing PEP. Today, extensive research has identified various risk factors, often broadly categorized as patient-related factors (e.g. younger age or female sex) and procedure-related factors (e.g. difficult cannulation, repeated pancreatic duct instrumentation, or pancreatic duct guidewire placement). In recent years, anatomical factors such as large pancreatic parenchymal volume, high pancreatic fat content, and specific duodenal papilla morphology have been reported as risk factors for PEP.</p><p>As also emphasized by Kato <i>et al</i>.,<sup>5</sup> it is rare for patients undergoing ERCP to possess only a single risk factor, and several studies have reported the prediction of PEP using a prediction model and scoring system. In addition, artificial intelligence has been reported to be a helpful option for dealing with the increasingly complex risk factors of PEP in an integrated manner. The development of PEP prediction models has been reported, with further growth expected.</p><p>Over the decades, three interventions, such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic stent placement (PSP), and aggressive hydration, have emerged as standard preventive measures for PEP.</p><p>Rectally administered NSAIDs, such as diclofenac and indomethacin, have been shown to be highly effective in reducing the risk of PEP, with several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses supporting their use. Guidelines in the United States, Europe, and Japan are now recommend rectally administered NSAIDs. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the optimal dosage, as the standard 100 mg dose recommended in guidelines differs from the lower doses commonly used in some countries, including Japan. PSP is employed in patients with a particularly high risk of PEP.<span><sup>6</sup></span> Comparative studies have demonstrated that combining NSAIDs with PSP further reduces the risk of PEP compared to NSAIDs alone. Toyonaga <i>et al</i>. also reported that PSP may reduce the risk of PEP following the placement of covered self-expandable metal stents.<span><sup>7</sup></span></p><p>More recently, aggressive fluid replacement has been identified as a potential PEP prevention strategy. While promising, variability exists in the protocols regarding the volume, timing, and rate of fluid administration, and further research is needed to establish standardized guidelines.</p><p>Kato <i>et al</i>.<sup>5</sup> also discussed novel PEP prevention measures such as the use of tacrolimus or nitrate as a drug in combination with NSAIDs, the precut technique, and facility and operator factors. Tacrolimus is a calcineurin inhibitor, and when used in combination with NSAIDs, it is effective in preventing PEP. Animal experiments have also shown that it is effective when administered rectally or via the pancreas. However, currently, the immunosuppressant tacrolimus is not used in healthy people.</p><p>Nitrates, especially when administered sublingually, are also reported to have a preventive effect on PEP; however, there is no sufficient supporting evidence.</p><p>Despite several reports of the usefulness of precut, the timing of trans-pancreatic sphincterotomy and its preventive effect on PEP need to be verified.</p><p>Over the past 55 years, technological advancements have resulted in new therapeutic devices, such as metal stents and cholangioscopes, which have enhanced ERCP's diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Recent studies suggest a potential increase in PEP cases owing to the broader use of complex therapeutic procedures and devices.</p><p>Additionally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP.<span><sup>8, 9</sup></span> Unlike ERCP, EUS-BD does not carry the risk of postoperative pancreatitis; however, its adoption remains limited due to technical complexity and the need for specialized facilities and expertise. Despite this, compared to the early days of ERCP, there is currently a greater need to carefully consider the indications for ERCP, while also keeping in mind the indications for EUS-BD. Furthermore, to enable better indication selection, it is necessary to clarify the impact of new devices and techniques on PEP.</p><p>There have also been advancements in the early diagnosis of PEP. Measuring pancreatic enzyme activity (e.g. serum amylase or lipase) within a few hours of ERCP is standard practice. Hirota <i>et al</i>. analyzed 20 articles to evaluate the usefulness of pancreatic enzyme levels using a pooled analysis and concluded that serum amylase or lipase levels more than three times the upper limit of normal measured 2–4 h after ERCP are helpful for predicting PEP.<span><sup>10</sup></span></p><p>In addition, novel biomarkers such as urinary trypsinogen-2 have shown promise for rapid and accurate early detection. These developments allow for quicker intervention, potentially reducing the severity of PEP.</p><p>Prevention of PEP is a top priority for clinicians performing ERCP. While the methods have evolved, the need to minimize risk through procedural care, patient assessment, and preventive interventions remains constant.</p><p>Over the past five decades, significant advancements have been made in the understanding, prediction, and prevention of PEP. The identification of risk factors, development of preventive strategies such as NSAIDs and PSP, and introduction of predictive models and biomarkers represent important progress. However, challenges persist, including the rising incidence of PEP in some contexts, variability in preventive protocols, and the need for further research into alternative techniques such as EUS-BD. Although ERCP remains the cornerstone of managing biliary-pancreatic disease, the increasing adoption of EUS-BD is controversial. Technological advances have increased the complexity of ERCP and place greater responsibility on the clinician than they did 55 years ago.</p><p>Careful patient selection remains as critical as it was 55 years ago. ERCP should only be performed when clearly indicated, as unnecessary procedures expose patients to avoidable risks, including PEP. This principle continues to be a cornerstone of responsible clinical practice. The responsibility of medical professionals to perform ERCP with care and diligence also remains unchanged. Clinicians must stay updated on best practices, adopt new evidence-based techniques, and always prioritize patient safety. Awareness of PEP risk factors and preventive strategies is as critical today as it was 55 years ago.</p><p>As ERCP continues to be an essential tool in gastroenterology, clinicians must remain vigilant and informed and strive to reduce the risk of complications and improve patient outcomes. While the field has made great strides, the ongoing commitment to safety and innovation will define the next 55 years of progress in ERCP practice.</p><p>Author M.T. is an Associate Editor of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>. The other author declares no conflict of interest for this article.</p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 4","pages":"373-375"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.15025","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.15025","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although 55 years have passed since endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was first reported in 1968,1 post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical challenge. A systematic review of 108 randomized controlled trials conducted between 1977 and 2012 revealed a 9.7% incidence of PEP among 13,296 patients in the control group.2 Further, a prospective multicenter observational study involving 3739 cases reported a PEP incidence of 6.9%.3 Notably, several studies have documented an increasing trend in PEP incidence over time. An analysis of 1.22 million hospitalizations in the United States from 2011 to 2017 showed rising hospitalization and fatality rates associated with PEP.4 This trend may be attributed to the development and increased use of new therapeutic devices such as metal stents and cholangioscopes over the past 55 years. Meanwhile, there has been significant progress in understanding and preventing PEP, with studies identifying predictive factors and preventive strategies for PEP. Unlike 55 years ago, clinicians can now assess patient-related and procedure-related risk factors for PEP before ERCP and consider appropriate preventive measures. However, effective prediction and prevention require a comprehensive understanding of the latest advancements.

In this issue of Digestive Endoscopy, Kato et al. present an in-depth review titled “Current status and issues for prediction and prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.”5 This article explores the latest prediction models, scoring systems, and newly identified patient factors. The following is a summary of changes and enduring aspects regarding PEP over the past 55 years.

In the early days of ERCP, knowledge about the risk factors for PEP was limited. There was no awareness that groups, such as young women, were at higher risk of developing PEP. Today, extensive research has identified various risk factors, often broadly categorized as patient-related factors (e.g. younger age or female sex) and procedure-related factors (e.g. difficult cannulation, repeated pancreatic duct instrumentation, or pancreatic duct guidewire placement). In recent years, anatomical factors such as large pancreatic parenchymal volume, high pancreatic fat content, and specific duodenal papilla morphology have been reported as risk factors for PEP.

As also emphasized by Kato et al.,5 it is rare for patients undergoing ERCP to possess only a single risk factor, and several studies have reported the prediction of PEP using a prediction model and scoring system. In addition, artificial intelligence has been reported to be a helpful option for dealing with the increasingly complex risk factors of PEP in an integrated manner. The development of PEP prediction models has been reported, with further growth expected.

Over the decades, three interventions, such as nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic stent placement (PSP), and aggressive hydration, have emerged as standard preventive measures for PEP.

Rectally administered NSAIDs, such as diclofenac and indomethacin, have been shown to be highly effective in reducing the risk of PEP, with several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses supporting their use. Guidelines in the United States, Europe, and Japan are now recommend rectally administered NSAIDs. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the optimal dosage, as the standard 100 mg dose recommended in guidelines differs from the lower doses commonly used in some countries, including Japan. PSP is employed in patients with a particularly high risk of PEP.6 Comparative studies have demonstrated that combining NSAIDs with PSP further reduces the risk of PEP compared to NSAIDs alone. Toyonaga et al. also reported that PSP may reduce the risk of PEP following the placement of covered self-expandable metal stents.7

More recently, aggressive fluid replacement has been identified as a potential PEP prevention strategy. While promising, variability exists in the protocols regarding the volume, timing, and rate of fluid administration, and further research is needed to establish standardized guidelines.

Kato et al.5 also discussed novel PEP prevention measures such as the use of tacrolimus or nitrate as a drug in combination with NSAIDs, the precut technique, and facility and operator factors. Tacrolimus is a calcineurin inhibitor, and when used in combination with NSAIDs, it is effective in preventing PEP. Animal experiments have also shown that it is effective when administered rectally or via the pancreas. However, currently, the immunosuppressant tacrolimus is not used in healthy people.

Nitrates, especially when administered sublingually, are also reported to have a preventive effect on PEP; however, there is no sufficient supporting evidence.

Despite several reports of the usefulness of precut, the timing of trans-pancreatic sphincterotomy and its preventive effect on PEP need to be verified.

Over the past 55 years, technological advancements have resulted in new therapeutic devices, such as metal stents and cholangioscopes, which have enhanced ERCP's diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Recent studies suggest a potential increase in PEP cases owing to the broader use of complex therapeutic procedures and devices.

Additionally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP.8, 9 Unlike ERCP, EUS-BD does not carry the risk of postoperative pancreatitis; however, its adoption remains limited due to technical complexity and the need for specialized facilities and expertise. Despite this, compared to the early days of ERCP, there is currently a greater need to carefully consider the indications for ERCP, while also keeping in mind the indications for EUS-BD. Furthermore, to enable better indication selection, it is necessary to clarify the impact of new devices and techniques on PEP.

There have also been advancements in the early diagnosis of PEP. Measuring pancreatic enzyme activity (e.g. serum amylase or lipase) within a few hours of ERCP is standard practice. Hirota et al. analyzed 20 articles to evaluate the usefulness of pancreatic enzyme levels using a pooled analysis and concluded that serum amylase or lipase levels more than three times the upper limit of normal measured 2–4 h after ERCP are helpful for predicting PEP.10

In addition, novel biomarkers such as urinary trypsinogen-2 have shown promise for rapid and accurate early detection. These developments allow for quicker intervention, potentially reducing the severity of PEP.

Prevention of PEP is a top priority for clinicians performing ERCP. While the methods have evolved, the need to minimize risk through procedural care, patient assessment, and preventive interventions remains constant.

Over the past five decades, significant advancements have been made in the understanding, prediction, and prevention of PEP. The identification of risk factors, development of preventive strategies such as NSAIDs and PSP, and introduction of predictive models and biomarkers represent important progress. However, challenges persist, including the rising incidence of PEP in some contexts, variability in preventive protocols, and the need for further research into alternative techniques such as EUS-BD. Although ERCP remains the cornerstone of managing biliary-pancreatic disease, the increasing adoption of EUS-BD is controversial. Technological advances have increased the complexity of ERCP and place greater responsibility on the clinician than they did 55 years ago.

Careful patient selection remains as critical as it was 55 years ago. ERCP should only be performed when clearly indicated, as unnecessary procedures expose patients to avoidable risks, including PEP. This principle continues to be a cornerstone of responsible clinical practice. The responsibility of medical professionals to perform ERCP with care and diligence also remains unchanged. Clinicians must stay updated on best practices, adopt new evidence-based techniques, and always prioritize patient safety. Awareness of PEP risk factors and preventive strategies is as critical today as it was 55 years ago.

As ERCP continues to be an essential tool in gastroenterology, clinicians must remain vigilant and informed and strive to reduce the risk of complications and improve patient outcomes. While the field has made great strides, the ongoing commitment to safety and innovation will define the next 55 years of progress in ERCP practice.

Author M.T. is an Associate Editor of Digestive Endoscopy. The other author declares no conflict of interest for this article.

None.

在过去的55年中,关于内镜后逆行胰胆管造影胰腺炎的预测和预防有什么变化和保持不变?
尽管自1968年首次报道内窥镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)以来已经过去了55年,但ERCP后胰腺炎(PEP)仍然是一个主要的临床挑战。一项对1977年至2012年间进行的108项随机对照试验的系统回顾显示,在对照组的13296名患者中,PEP的发生率为9.7%此外,一项涉及3739例的前瞻性多中心观察性研究报告PEP发生率为6.9%值得注意的是,一些研究记录了PEP发病率随时间的增加趋势。一项对2011年至2017年美国122万例住院病例的分析显示,与pep相关的住院率和死亡率不断上升。这一趋势可能归因于过去55年来金属支架和胆道镜等新型治疗设备的发展和使用的增加。同时,对PEP的认识和预防也取得了重大进展,研究确定了PEP的预测因素和预防策略。与55年前不同,临床医生现在可以在ERCP之前评估PEP的患者相关和手术相关风险因素,并考虑适当的预防措施。然而,有效的预测和预防需要全面了解最新进展。在本期的《消化道内窥镜》杂志上,Kato等人发表了一篇题为“内镜后逆行胰胆管造影胰腺炎预测和预防的现状和问题”的深入综述。本文探讨了最新的预测模型、评分系统和新发现的患者因素。以下是在过去的55年里,PEP的变化和持久方面的总结。在ERCP的早期,人们对PEP的危险因素了解有限。人们没有意识到,年轻女性等群体患PEP的风险更高。今天,广泛的研究已经确定了各种危险因素,通常大致分为与患者相关的因素(如年轻或女性)和与手术相关的因素(如插管困难、重复胰管内固定或胰管导丝放置)。近年来,解剖因素如胰腺实质体积大、胰腺脂肪含量高、特殊的十二指肠乳头形态等被报道为PEP的危险因素。正如Kato等人所强调的,5接受ERCP的患者很少只有单一的危险因素,有几项研究报道了使用预测模型和评分系统预测PEP。此外,据报道,人工智能是一种有用的选择,可以综合处理PEP日益复杂的风险因素。PEP预测模型的发展已被报道,预计将进一步增长。几十年来,三种干预措施,如非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、胰腺支架置入术(PSP)和积极水化治疗,已成为PEP的标准预防措施。直肠给予非甾体抗炎药,如双氯芬酸和吲哚美辛,已被证明在降低PEP风险方面非常有效,一些随机对照试验和荟萃分析支持它们的使用。美国、欧洲和日本的指南现在推荐直肠给药。然而,关于最佳剂量的争论仍在继续,因为指南中推荐的标准100毫克剂量与包括日本在内的一些国家常用的较低剂量不同。PSP用于PEP风险特别高的患者。6比较研究表明,与单独使用NSAIDs相比,NSAIDs联合PSP可进一步降低PEP的风险。Toyonaga等人也报道了PSP可以降低置放有盖自膨胀金属支架后发生PEP的风险。最近,积极的液体替换已被确定为潜在的PEP预防策略。虽然有希望,但方案在液体给药的量、时间和速度方面存在差异,需要进一步研究以建立标准化的指导方针。Kato等人5还讨论了新的PEP预防措施,如将他克莫司或硝酸盐作为药物与非甾体抗炎药联合使用,预切技术,设备和操作因素。他克莫司是一种钙调神经磷酸酶抑制剂,与非甾体抗炎药联合使用时,可有效预防PEP。动物实验也表明,通过直肠或胰腺给药是有效的。然而,目前免疫抑制剂他克莫司并未用于健康人群。据报道,硝酸盐,特别是舌下给药时,对PEP也有预防作用;然而,没有足够的支持证据。尽管有几篇关于预切有用的报道,但经胰括约肌切开术的时机及其对PEP的预防作用有待证实。 在过去的55年里,技术进步带来了新的治疗设备,如金属支架和胆管镜,这些设备增强了ERCP的诊断和治疗能力。最近的研究表明,由于广泛使用复杂的治疗程序和设备,PEP病例可能会增加。此外,超声内镜引导胆道引流(EUS-BD)已成为ERCP的替代方案8,9。与ERCP不同,EUS-BD不会带来术后胰腺炎的风险;然而,由于技术的复杂性和对专门设施和专门知识的需要,它的采用仍然有限。尽管如此,与早期的ERCP相比,目前更需要仔细考虑ERCP的适应症,同时也要记住EUS-BD的适应症。此外,为了更好地选择适应证,有必要明确新器械和新技术对PEP的影响。PEP的早期诊断也取得了进展。在ERCP几小时内测量胰酶活性(如血清淀粉酶或脂肪酶)是标准做法。Hirota等人分析了20篇文章,使用汇总分析来评估胰酶水平的有效性,并得出结论,ERCP后2-4小时血清淀粉酶或脂肪酶水平超过正常测量上限的三倍有助于预测pep。此外,新的生物标志物,如尿胰蛋白酶原-2,已显示出快速准确的早期检测的希望。这些发展使得更快的干预成为可能,可能会降低PEP的严重程度。预防PEP是临床医生实施ERCP的首要任务。虽然方法不断发展,但通过程序性护理、患者评估和预防性干预措施将风险降到最低的必要性仍然存在。在过去的50年里,人们对PEP的认识、预测和预防取得了重大进展。风险因素的识别,非甾体抗炎药和PSP等预防策略的制定,以及预测模型和生物标志物的引入都是重要的进展。然而,挑战仍然存在,包括PEP在某些情况下的发病率上升,预防方案的可变性,以及需要进一步研究EUS-BD等替代技术。尽管ERCP仍然是治疗胆胰疾病的基石,但EUS-BD的日益普及仍存在争议。技术的进步增加了ERCP的复杂性,与55年前相比,临床医生承担了更大的责任。谨慎的病人选择和55年前一样重要。ERCP仅应在明确指示时进行,因为不必要的程序使患者暴露于可避免的风险,包括PEP。这一原则仍然是负责任的临床实践的基石。医疗专业人员谨慎和勤奋地执行ERCP的责任也保持不变。临床医生必须及时了解最佳实践,采用新的循证技术,并始终优先考虑患者安全。今天,对PEP风险因素和预防策略的认识与55年前一样至关重要。由于ERCP仍然是胃肠病学的重要工具,临床医生必须保持警惕和知情,努力降低并发症的风险,改善患者的预后。虽然该领域已经取得了巨大的进步,但对安全性和创新的持续承诺将定义未来55年ERCP实践的进展。作者M.T.是消化内窥镜的副主编。另一位作者声明这篇文章没有利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Digestive Endoscopy
Digestive Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
15.10%
发文量
291
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Digestive Endoscopy (DEN) is the official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy and the World Endoscopy Organization. Digestive Endoscopy serves as a medium for presenting original articles that offer significant contributions to knowledge in the broad field of endoscopy. The Journal also includes Reviews, Original Articles, How I Do It, Case Reports (only of exceptional interest and novelty are accepted), Letters, Techniques and Images, abstracts and news items that may be of interest to endoscopists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信