Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However,... Show moreObjective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -euro6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -euro26 386 to euro10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable. Show less
Weiland, C.J.S.; Smeets, X.J.N.M.; Kievit, W.; Verdonk, R.C.; Poen, A.C.; Bhalla, A.; ... ; Dutch Pancreatitis Study G 2021
Background Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs... Show moreBackground Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs.Methods FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155.Findings Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0.84, 95% CI 0.53-1.33, p=0.53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0.99, 95% CI 0.59-1.64; p=1.00), ERCP-related complications (0.90, 0.62-1.31; p=0.62), intensive care unit admission (0.37, 0.07-1.80; p=0.22), and 30-day mortality (0.95, 0.50-1.83; p=1.00).Interpretation Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. Copyright (c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
