BackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard... Show moreBackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs.MethodsThe ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs.DiscussionThe ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. Show less
Objective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary... Show moreObjective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. Results: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). Conclusion: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. Show less
Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion... Show moreBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome.Methods We established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP.Results We established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25-4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7).Conclusions Even in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
BackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of... Show moreBackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome.MethodsWe established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP.ResultsWe established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25–4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7).ConclusionsEven in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP. Show less
Background and study aims Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct... Show moreBackground and study aims Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Patients and methods We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance.Results We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P = 0.002).Conclusions Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use. Show less
Background Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because... Show moreBackground Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because diagnostic performance of these tools has not been studied and might therefore impose unnecessary ERCPs, we aimed to evaluate this. Methods We established a nationwide prospective cohort of patients with suspected biliary obstruction who underwent an ERCP. We assessed the diagnostic performance of Tokyo Guidelines (TG18), Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group (DPSG) criteria, and Charcot triad relative to real-world cholangitis as the reference standard. Results 127 (16%) of 794 patients were diagnosed with real-world cholangitis. Using the TG18, DPSG, and Charcot triad, 345 (44%), 55 (7%), and 66 (8%) patients were defined as having cholangitis, respectively. Sensitivity for TG18 was 82% (95% CI 74-88) and specificity 60% (95% CI 56-63). The sensitivity for DPSG and Charcot was 42% (95% CI 33-51) and 46% (95% CI 38-56), specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99-100) and 99% (95% CI 98-100), respectively. Conclusions TG18 criteria incorrectly diagnoses four out of ten patients with real-world cholangitis, while DPSG and Charcot criteria failed to diagnose more than half of patients. As the cholangitis diagnosis has many consequences for treatment, there is a need for more accurate diagnostic tools or work-up towards ERCP. Show less
BACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is... Show moreBACKGROUNDInfected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown.METHODSWe conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up.RESULTSA total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONSThis trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. 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
Background Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic duct stenting, and intensive intravenous hydration have been proven to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde... Show moreBackground Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), pancreatic duct stenting, and intensive intravenous hydration have been proven to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Trial participation and guideline changes demanded an assessment of the clinical practice of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis. Aims The surveys aim to identify points of improvement to inform and educate ERCPists about current evidence-based practice. Methods Two anonymous surveys were conducted among Dutch gastroenterologists in 2013 (n = 408) and 2020 (n = 575) for longitudinal views and attitudes pertaining to post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and recognition of post-ERCP pancreatitis risk factors. Results In 2013 and 2020, respectively, 121 and 109 ERCPists responded. In the 2013 survey, 98% of them utilized NSAID prophylaxis and 62% pancreatic duct stent prophylaxis in specific cases. In the 2020 survey, the use of NSAIDs (100%), pancreatic duct stents (78%), and intensive intravenous hydration (33%) increased among ERCPists. NSAID prophylaxis was the preferred prophylactic measure for all risk factors in the 2020 survey, except for ampullectomy, pancreatic duct contrast injection, and pancreatic duct cannulation, for which NSAID prophylaxis and pancreatic duct stent combined was equally favored or preferred. Conclusion Rectal NSAIDs are the most applied post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis in the Netherlands, followed by pancreatic duct stents and intensive intravenous hydration. Additionally, there is reason to believe that recent guideline updates and active research participation have led to increased prophylaxis implementation. Show less
IMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier... Show moreIMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function.OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for <= 2 months or weak opioids for <= 6 months) were included. The 18-month follow-up period ended in March 2018.INTERVENTIONS There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality.RESULTS Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P = .02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P = .10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P < .001). Treatment complications (27% vs 25%), mortality (0% vs 0%), hospital admissions, pancreatic function, and quality of life were not significantly different between early surgery and the endoscopy-first approach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months. However, further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings. Show less
