Christina J Sperna Weiland, Venkata S Akshintala, Anmol Singh, James Buxbaum, Jun-Ho Choi, Badih J Elmunzer, Evan S Fogel, Jian-Han Lai, John M Levenick, Timothy B Gardner, Guan W Lua, Hui Luo, Mike de Jong, Shaffer R S Mok, Veit Phillip, Vikesh Singh, Peter D Siersema, Joost P H Drenth, Erwin J M van Geenen
{"title":"ERCP术后胰腺炎的预防措施和风险因素:系统回顾和个体患者数据元分析》。","authors":"Christina J Sperna Weiland, Venkata S Akshintala, Anmol Singh, James Buxbaum, Jun-Ho Choi, Badih J Elmunzer, Evan S Fogel, Jian-Han Lai, John M Levenick, Timothy B Gardner, Guan W Lua, Hui Luo, Mike de Jong, Shaffer R S Mok, Veit Phillip, Vikesh Singh, Peter D Siersema, Joost P H Drenth, Erwin J M van Geenen","doi":"10.1007/s10620-024-08693-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient's risk profile.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":11378,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Christina J Sperna Weiland, Venkata S Akshintala, Anmol Singh, James Buxbaum, Jun-Ho Choi, Badih J Elmunzer, Evan S Fogel, Jian-Han Lai, John M Levenick, Timothy B Gardner, Guan W Lua, Hui Luo, Mike de Jong, Shaffer R S Mok, Veit Phillip, Vikesh Singh, Peter D Siersema, Joost P H Drenth, Erwin J M van Geenen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10620-024-08693-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient's risk profile.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11378,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Diseases and Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08693-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Diseases and Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-024-08693-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:内镜下逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)后胰腺炎(PEP)是ERCP最常见的并发症,但比较综合预防措施及其相对于患者个体风险特征的疗效的研究有限。本研究旨在进行个体患者数据荟萃分析(IPDMA),以评估患者和ERCP相关风险因素对PEP发生的影响,并根据患者的风险特征确定最佳预防策略:我们系统检索了 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库中截至 2022 年 11 月的 PEP 预防性随机对照试验。我们邀请作者分享患者的个人数据,包括 PEP 风险概况和使用的预防措施。我们计算了不同预防方法的 PEP 发生率。使用多层次逻辑回归比较疗效,并以相对风险 (RR) 表示。亚组分析评估了患者和 ERCP 相关风险因素在发生 PEP 中的作用:结果:分析了来自 11 项研究的数据,包括 6430 名患者。调整风险因素后,直肠非甾体抗炎药(RR 0.69,95%CI 0.54-0.88)和围手术期大流量静脉输液(IVF)(RR 0.40,95%CI 0.21-0.79)可有效降低 PEP 发生率,而胰管(PD)支架(RR 1.25,95%CI 0.91-1.73)则无益。在接受直肠非甾体抗炎药治疗的患者中(n = 2617),插管困难(RR 1.99,1.45-2.73)、向胰管(PD)注射对比剂(RR2.37,1.68-3.32)和既往PEP病史(RR 1.90,1.06-3.41)与PEP风险增加有关:本 IPDMA 证实,直肠非甾体抗炎药和围手术期 IVF 是有效的 PEP 预防策略。需要进一步研究联合疗法或开发个性化的 PEP 风险计算器,以改进预防策略。
Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.
Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient's risk profile.
Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP.
Results: Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk.
Conclusion: This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.
期刊介绍:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences publishes high-quality, peer-reviewed, original papers addressing aspects of basic/translational and clinical research in gastroenterology, hepatology, and related fields. This well-illustrated journal features comprehensive coverage of basic pathophysiology, new technological advances, and clinical breakthroughs; insights from prominent academicians and practitioners concerning new scientific developments and practical medical issues; and discussions focusing on the latest changes in local and worldwide social, economic, and governmental policies that affect the delivery of care within the disciplines of gastroenterology and hepatology.