Skip to main content
Log in

Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis

Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERPC) is used for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication which needs special care and clinical practice guideline for this morbidity is also needed.

Methods

The key clinical issues of diagnosis and treatment of PEP were listed and checked, and then the clinical questions were formulated. PubMed (MEDLINE) and Ichushi-web (Japanese medical literature) were used as databases. For the study of diagnostic test accuracy, items similar to QUADAS-2, i.e., random selection from a population to which the diagnostic test is applied, blinding of index tests and reference tests, completeness of reference standard, completeness of test implementations, the same timing of tests, and missing data were assessed as well as the indirectness of the study subjects, index tests, reference standard, and outcomes. Grading of recommendations was determined as strong or weak. In clinical practice, the judgment of attending doctors should be more important than recommendations described in clinical practice guidelines. Gastroenterologists are the target users of this clinical practice guideline. General practitioners or general citizens are not supposed to use this guideline. The guideline committee has decided to include wide clinical issues such as etiological information, techniques of ERCP, the diagnosis, treatments, and monitoring of PEP in this guideline.

Results

In this concise report, we described ten clinical questions, recommendations, and explanations pertaining to risk factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, treatments, and preventive interventions in the medical practice for PEP.

Conclusions

We reported here the essence of the clinical practice guideline for PEP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2011. (http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews/Standards.aspx).

  2. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, et al. Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines; Institute of Medicine: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13058/clinical-practice-guidelines-we-can-trust).

  3. Schünemann H, Brożek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated October 2013. The GRADE Working Group, 2013. (www.guidelinedevelopment.org/handbook).

  4. Minds Guideline Center, Japan Council for Quality Health Care. Minds handbook for clinical practice guideline development 2014. 2014.

  5. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2 Group: QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Villatoro E, Bassi C, Larvin M. Antibiotics therapy for prophylaxis against infection of pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD002941.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Working UK. Party on acute pancreatitis: UK guidelines for management of acute pancreatitis. Gut. 2005;54(Suppl 3):31–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Forsmark CE, Baillie J. AGA Institute Clinical Practice and Economics Committee, AGA Institute Governing Board, AGA Institute technical review on acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2022–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Golub R, Siddiqi F, Pohl D. Role of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 1998;2:496–503.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sharma VK, Howden CW. Prophylactic antibiotics administration reduces sepsis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas. 2001;22:28–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Vries AC, Besselink MGH, Buskens E, et al. Randomized controlled trials of antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: relationship between methodological quality and outcome. Pancreatology. 2007;7:531–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bai Y, Gao J, Zou D, et al. Prophylactic antibiotics cannot reduce infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: evidence from meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:104–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Akshintala VS, Hutfless SM, Colantuoni E, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38:1325–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Vesentini S, et al. A randomized multicenter clinical trial of antibiotics prophylaxis of septic complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis with imipenem. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1993;176:480–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Schwarz M, Isenmann R, Meyer H, et al. Antibiotic use in necrotizing pancreatitis. Results of controlled study. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1997;122:356–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nordback I, Sand J, Saaristo R, et al. Early treatment with antibiotics reduces the need for surgery in acute necrotizing pancreatitis—a single-center randomized study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2001;5:113–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Manes G, Rabitti PG, Menchise A, et al. Prophylaxis with meropenem of septic complications in acute pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial versus imipenem. Pancreas. 2003;27:e79–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manes G, Uomo I, Menchise A, et al. Timing of antibiotics prophylaxis in acute pancreatitis: a controlled randomized study with meropenem. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1348–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Isennman R, Runzi M, Kroon M, et al. Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Grag PK, Khanna S, Bohidar NP, et al. Incidence, spectrum and antibiotic sensitivity pattern of bacterial infections among patients with acute pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;16:1055–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kadokawa Y, Takeda K, Sunamura M, et al. Effectiveness of continuous arterial infusion of protease inhibitors for experimental acute pancreatitis caused by the creation of a blind duodenal loop. J Jpn Soc Gastroenterol. 1990;87:1444–50.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hayashi J, Kawarada Y, Isaji S, et al. Therapeutic effects of continuous itraarterial antibiotics infusion in preventing pancreatic infection in experimental acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreas. 1996;13:184–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mikami Y, Takeda K, Matsuda K, et al. Rat experimental model of regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitor and its effects on severe acute pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2005;30:248–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Takeda K, Matsuno S, Sunamura M, et al. Continuous regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitor and antibiotics in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Am J Surg. 1996;171:394–8 (level 3b).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Takeda K, Yamauchi J, Shibuya K, et al. Benefit of continuous regional arterial infusion of protease inhibitor and antibiotics in the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2001;1:668–73 (level 3b).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Consensus Revision Committee on Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis. Revised guidelines for the early diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis by the Consensus Revision Committee, third edition. Pancreas. 2011;26:651–83.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mine T, Akashi R, Igarashi Y, et al. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research. Research on measures for intractable disease. Survey on Intractable Diseases. 2008 Technical report on survey of intractable pancreatic disease 2009; 77–78.

  28. Seta T, Noguchi Y. Protease inhibitors for preventing complications associated with ERCP: an updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(4):700–706.e1-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andriulli A, Clemente R, Solmi L, et al. Gabexate or somatostatin administration before ERCP in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:488–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Andriulli A, Solmi L, Loperfido S, et al. Prophylaxis of ERCP-related pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial of somatostatin and gabexate mesylate. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:713–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Benvenutti S, Zancanella L, Piazzi L, et al. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with somatostatin versus gabexate mesylate: a randomized placebo controlled multicenter study. Dig Liv Dis. 2006;38:S15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cavallini G, Tittobello A, Frulloni L, et al. Gabexate for the prevention of pancreatic damage related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gabexate in digestive endoscopy—Italian Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:919–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Manes G, Ardizzone S, Lombardi G, et al. Efficacy of postprocedure administration of gabexate mesylate in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:982–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiong GS, Wu SM, Zhang XW, et al. Clinical trial of gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Braz J Med Biol Res. 2006;39:85–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zheng M, Chen Y, Yang X, et al. Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol. 2007;7:6–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Andriulli A, Leandro G, Federici T, et al. Prophylactic administration of somatostatin or gabexate does not prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: an updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:624–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rudin D, Kiss A, Wetz RV, et al. Somatostatin and gabexate for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22:977–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tsujino T, Komatsu Y, Isayama H, et al. Ulinastatin for pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:376–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ueki T, Otani K, Kawamoto K, et al. Comparison between ulinastatin and gabexate mesylate for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized trial. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42:161–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yoo JW, Ryu JK, Lee SH, et al. Preventive effects of ulinastatin on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Pancreas. 2008;37:366–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Dai HF, Wang XW, Zhao K. Role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Hepat Pancreat Dis Int. 2009;8:11–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Elmunzer B, Waljee A, Elta G, et al. A meta-analysis of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut. 2008;57:1262.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Zheng M-H, Xia H, Chen Y-P. Rectal administration of NSAIDs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a complementary meta-analysis. Gut. 2008;57:1632.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Akshintala VS, Hutfless SM, Colantuoni E, et al. Systematic review with network meta-analysis: pharmacological prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(11–12):1325–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Otsuka T, Kawazoe S, Nakashita S, et al. Low-dose rectal diclofenac for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47(8):912–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, et al. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60(4):544–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Andriulli A, Forlano R, Napolitano G, et al. Pancreatic duct stents in the prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks. Digestion. 2007;75(2–3):156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(2):275–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sofuni A, Maguchi H, Itoi T, et al. Prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by an endoscopic pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:1339–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Chahal P, Tarnasky PR, Petersen BT, et al. Short 5Fr vs long 3Fr pancreatic stents in patients at risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7(8):834–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fehmi SMA, Schoenfeld PS, Scheiman JM, et al. 5 Fr prophylactic pancreatic stents are easier to place and require fewer guide wires than 3 Fr stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:AB328–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Smith MT, Sherman S, Ikenberry SO, et al. Alterations in pancreatic ductal morphology following polyethylene pancreatic stent therapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:268–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. A prospective randomized trial of cannulation technique in ERCP: effects on technical success and post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy. 2008;40:296–301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Katsinelos P, Paroutoglou G, Kountouras J, et al. A comparative study of standard ERCP catheter and hydrophilic guide wire in the selective cannulation of the common bile duct. Endoscopy. 2008;40:302–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kawakami H, Maguchi H, Mukai T, et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study of selective bile duct cannulation performed by multiple endoscopists: the BIDMEN study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:362–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kobayashi G, Fujita N, Imaizumi K, et al. Wire-guided biliary cannulation technique does not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:295–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan W-L, et al. Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1211–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tse F, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P, et al. Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD009662.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tetsuya Mine.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mine, T., Morizane, T., Kawaguchi, Y. et al. Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 52, 1013–1022 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1359-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1359-5

Keywords

Navigation