Sphincterotomy for Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder and idiopathic Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis: THE RESPOND LONGITUDINAL COHORT.

Objective: Sphincter of Oddi Disorders (SOD) are contentious conditions in patients whose abdominal pain, idiopathic acute pancreatitis (iAP) might arise from pressurization at the sphincter of Oddi. The present study aimed to measure the benefit of sphincterotomy for suspected SOD. Design: Prospective cohort conducted at 14 U.S. centers with 12 months follow-up. Patients undergoing first-time ERCP with sphincterotomy for suspected SOD were eligible: pancreatobiliary-type pain with or without iAP. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of improvement by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), no new or increased opioids, and no repeat intervention. Missing data were addressed by hierarchal, multiple imputation scheme. Results: Of 316 screened, 213 were enrolled with 190 (89.2%) of these having a dilated bile duct, abnormal labs, iAP, or some combination. By imputation, an average of 122/213 (57.4% [95%CI 50.4-64.4]) improved; response rate was similar for those with complete follow-up (99/161, 61.5%, [54.0-69.0]); of these, 118 (73.3%) improved by PGIC alone. Duct size, elevated labs, and patient characteristics were not associated with response. AP occurred in 37/213 (17.4%) at a median of 6 months post-ERCP and was more likely in those with a history of AP (30.9 vs. 2.9%, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Nearly 60% of patients undergoing ERCP for suspected SOD improve, although the contribution of a placebo response is unknown. Contrary to prevailing belief, duct size and labs are poor response predictors. AP recurrence was common and like observations from prior non-intervention cohorts, suggesting no benefit of sphincterotomy in mitigating future AP episodes.Key Messages: WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC: It is not clear if the sphincter of Oddi can cause abdominal pain (Functional Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder) and idiopathic acute pancreatitis (Functional Pancreatic Sphincter of Oddi Disorder), and whether ERCP with sphincterotomy can ameliorate abdominal pain or pancreatitis.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Using multiple patient-reported outcome measures, most patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi disorder improve after ERCP with sphincterotomy.Duct size, elevated pancreatobiliary labs, and baseline patient characteristics are not independently associated with response.There is a high rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis within 12 months of sphincterotomy in those with a history of idiopathic acute pancreatitis.HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR POLICY: Since a discrete population with a high (> 80-90%) response rate to sphincterotomy for suspected pancreatobiliary pain could not be identified, there is a need for additional observational and interventional studies that include phenotyping of patients using novel imaging or biochemical biomarkers.There remains a pressing need for quantitative nociceptive biomarkers to distinguish pancreatobiliary pain from other causes of abdominal pain or central sensitization.Discovery of blood-, bile-, or imaging-based biomarkers for occult microlithiasis and pancreatitis may be helpful in predicting who is likely to benefit from sphincterotomy.

Rise in First-Time ERCP For Benign Indications >1 Year After Cholecystectomy Is Associated With Worse Outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Greater availability of less invasive biliary imaging to rule out choledocholithiasis should reduce the need for diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who have a remote history of cholecystectomy. The primary aims were to determine the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of individuals who undergo first-time ERCP >1 year after cholecystectomy (late-ERCP). METHODS: Data from a commercial insurance claim database (Optum Clinformatics) identified 583,712 adults who underwent cholecystectomy, 4274 of whom underwent late-ERCP, defined as first-time ERCP for nonmalignant indications >1 year after cholecystectomy. Outcomes were exposure and temporal trends in late-ERCP, biliary imaging utilization, and post-ERCP outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with undergoing late-ERCP. RESULTS: Despite a temporal increase in the use of noninvasive biliary imaging (35.9% in 2004 to 65.6% in 2021; P < .001), the rate of late-ERCP increased 8-fold (0.5-4.2/1000 person-years from 2005 to 2021; P < .001). Although only 44% of patients who underwent late-ERCP had gallstone removal, there were high rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (7.1%), hospitalization (13.1%), and new chronic opioid use (9.7%). Factors associated with late-ERCP included concomitant disorder of gut-brain interaction (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.88-6.91) and metabolic dysfunction steatotic liver disease (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.79-3.55) along with use of anxiolytic (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.19-3.58), antispasmodic (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.72), and chronic opioids (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 5.79-6.52). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of late-ERCP postcholecystectomy is increasing significantly, particularly in patients with comorbidities associated with disorder of gut-brain interaction and mimickers of choledocholithiasis. Late-ERCPs are associated with disproportionately higher rates of adverse events, including initiation of chronic opioid use.

Clinical and Economic Implications of Interventions in Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Assessment From a National Claims Database.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and economic implications of percutaneous and endoscopic treatment approaches in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective claims analysis of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent inpatient endoscopic or percutaneous PFC drainage procedures (2016-2020). We performed longitudinal analysis of claims for all-cause mortality and rehospitalization during 180-day follow-up. Main outcome was mortality. Other outcomes were rehospitalization and direct costs. RESULTS: A total of 1311 patients underwent endoscopic (n = 727) or percutaneous (n = 584) drainage. Percutaneous as compared with endoscopic approach was associated with higher mortality (23.08% vs 16.7%, P = 0.004), rehospitalization (58.9% vs 53.3%, P = 0.04), and mean direct hospital costs ($37,107 [SD = $67,833] vs $27,800 [SD = $43,854], P = 0.004). On multivariable analysis, percutaneous drainage (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.86; P = 0.039), older age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P < 0.001), intensive care unit stay (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P < 0.001), and multiple comorbidities (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.05-1.09; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with mortality. Percutaneous drainage (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.04-1.63; P = 0.027) and older age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with rehospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: As percutaneous drainage may be associated with higher mortality, rehospitalization, and costs, when requisite expertise is available, endoscopy should be preferred for treatment of PFC amenable to such an approach. Randomized trials are required to validate these findings.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Treatment of walled-off necrosis using lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Walled-off necrosis (WON) is highly morbid disease most effectively managed by endoscopic drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) or plastic stents, with or without necrosectomy. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of patients included in randomized trials treated using LAMSs or plastic stents. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify all data collected from randomized trials comparing LAMSs and plastic stents for the treatment of WON. The primary outcome measure was need for endoscopic necrosectomy. RESULTS: Three studies comprising 206 patients met inclusion criteria. Except for procedure duration, which was significantly shorter for LAMSs (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.22, 95%CI -1.64 to -0.79), there was no significant difference in need for necrosectomy (38.5% vs. 41.2%; risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95%CI 0.79-1.45), number of interventions (SMD -0.09, 95%CI -0.40 to 0.22), treatment success (90.7% vs. 94.5%; RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.87-1.06), recurrence (4.6% vs. 0.6%; RR 3.73, 95%CI 0.42-33.0), readmission (42.6% vs. 50.2%; RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.62-1.14), length of hospitalization (SMD -0.06, 95%CI -0.55 to 0.43), mortality (8.5% vs. 9.8%; RR 0.70, 95%CI 0.30-1.66), new-onset organ failure (10.6% vs. 14.6%; RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.16-3.32), bleeding (11.0% vs. 10.7%; RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.34-3.44), procedural adverse events (23.6% vs. 19.2%; RR 1.38, 95%CI 0.82-2.33), or overall costs (SMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.24) between LAMSs and plastic stents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Except for procedure duration, there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes for patients with WON treated using LAMSs or plastic stents.

Impact of endoprosthesis type on inflammatory response in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of endoprosthesis type on inflammatory response in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). METHODS: Patients undergoing EUS-guided PFC drainage and treated using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) or plastic endoprostheses constituted the study cohort. The primary outcome was the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) after index intervention. Secondary outcomes were persistent organ failure, new onset organ failure, duration of hospitalization, and treatment success. RESULTS: In all, 303 patients were treated using LAMS (n = 247) or plastic stents (n = 56). At 48 h postintervention, the presence of SIRS (25.0 vs. 14.2%, P = 0.047), new onset SIRS (10.0 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.017), and new organ failure (5.4 vs. 0.4%, P = 0.003) were significantly higher in the plastic stent cohort compared to LAMS. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the use of plastic stents (odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-6.0, P = 0.014), patients receiving high-acuity care (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.5-10.4, P < 0.001) and the presence of ≥33% of necrosis (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.0-10.0, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the presence of SIRS or new organ failure. While there was no significant difference in treatment success (96.4 vs. 95.5%, P = 0.77), duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for the plastic stent cohort (mean [standard deviation] 12.5 [17.8] vs. 7.9 [10.1] days, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Use of plastic stents as compared to LAMS was associated with a higher proportion of SIRS and new organ failure that prolonged hospital stay. Therefore, placement of LAMS is recommended in sick patients and those with ≥33% necrosis to minimize inflammatory response.

Upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or step-up endoscopic approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis (DESTIN): a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the preferred management approach for patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis is endoscopic transluminal stenting followed by endoscopic necrosectomy as step-up treatment if there is no clinical improvement, the optimal timing of necrosectomy is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between performing upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention versus as a step-up measure in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. METHODS: This single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial (DESTIN) was done at six tertiary care hospitals (five hospitals in the USA and one hospital in India). We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed or suspected infected necrotising pancreatitis with a necrosis extent of at least 33% who were amenable to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. By use of computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size four), eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or endoscopic step-up treatment. Endoscopists were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants, research coordinators, and the statistician were. Lumen-apposing metal stents (20 mm diameter; 10 mm saddle length) were used for drainage in both groups. In the upfront group, direct necrosectomy was performed immediately after stenting in the same treatment session. In the step-up group, direct necrosectomy or additional drainage was done at a subsequent treatment session if there was no clinical improvement (resolution of any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis or one or more organ failure and at least a 25% percentage decrease in necrotic collection size) 72 h after stenting. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions per patient to achieve treatment success from index intervention to 6 months' follow-up, which was defined as symptom relief in conjunction with disease resolution on CT. Reinterventions included any endoscopic or radiological procedures performed for necrosectomy or additional drainage after the index intervention, excluding the follow-up procedure at 4 weeks for stent removal. All endpoints and safety were analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05043415 and NCT04113499, and recruitment and follow-up have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 183 patients were assessed for eligibility and 70 patients (24 [34%] women and 46 [66%] men) were randomly assigned to receive upfront necrosectomy (n=37) or step-up treatment (n=33) and included in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of index intervention, seven (10%) of 70 patients had organ failure and 64 (91%) patients had walled-off necrosis. The median number of reinterventions was significantly lower for upfront necrosectomy (1 [IQR 0 to 1] than for the step-up approach (2 [1 to 4], difference -1 [95% CI -2 to 0]; p=0·0027). Mortality did not differ between groups (zero patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs two [6%] in the step-up group, difference -6·1 percentage points [95% CI -16·5 to 4·5]; p=0·22), nor did overall disease-related adverse events (12 [32%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs 16 [48%] patients in the step-up group, difference -16·1 percentage points [-37·4 to 7·0]; p=0·17), nor procedure-related adverse events (four [11%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs eight [24%] patients in the step-up group, difference -13·4 percentage points [-30·8 to 5·0]; p=0·14). INTERPRETATION: In stabilised patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and fully encapsulated collections, an approach incorporating upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention rather than as a step-up measure could safely reduce the number of reinterventions required to achieve treatment success. FUNDING: None.

Orlando Protocol for single session ductal clearance of common bile duct stones at endosopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

OBJECTIVES: Approach to management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is not standardized. We examined outcomes by applying predetermined protocol for CBDS management. METHODS: When standard extraction techniques failed at ERCP, presence of tapered bile duct and stone-duct ratio were calculated. Large balloon sphincteroplasty (LBS) and/or mechanical/single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy was performed based on presence of tapered bile duct and stone-duct mismatch. Primary outcome was single-session ductal clearance. Secondary outcome was adverse events. RESULTS: Of 409 patients treated over 16 months, 321 (78.5%) had no tapered bile duct or stone-duct mismatch, and single-session ductal clearance was achieved using standard techniques in 99.7% over median duration of 14 min (interquartile range [IQR] 9-21 min). Of 88 (21.5%) patients with difficult CBDS, tapered duct was seen in 79 (89.8%) and/or stone-duct mismatch in 36 (40.9%). Single-session ductal clearance was achieved in all 88 patients (100%) by LBS in 79 (89.8%), mechanical lithotripsy in 20 (22.7%), and single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy in 16 (18.2%) over a median duration of 29 min (IQR 17-47 min). Overall, single-session ductal clearance was achieved in 99.8% with adverse events in 17 (4.2%) that included perforation in two, postsphincterotomy bleeding in one, and mild/moderate post-ERCP pancreatitis in 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: A predetermined protocol optimized outcomes by enabling single-session ductal clearance of CBDS with high technical success and low adverse events.

Impact of Slim Linear Echoendoscope on the Practice of EUS.

BACKGROUND: Standard linear echoendoscopes have a large distal tip and bending radius, which can preclude adequate examination in some patients. OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of having available slim linear echoendoscopes (SLE) on our endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a quality improvement measure, data on the need for the use of SLE were documented in 2000 consecutive procedures performed over a 10-month period from February to November 2022. When examination using a standard size echoendoscope failed due to technical limitations, the procedure was reattempted in the same session using a SLE. The main outcome was the impact of SLE, which was defined as the establishment of a new diagnosis or if findings altered treatment plan. RESULTS: A complete EUS examination failed in 23 of 2000 procedures (1.15%, 95% CI, 0.73-1.72%) performed using standard size echoendoscope (14 male, median age 73 y [IQR 66 to 79]). The examination was technically successful when using SLE in 22 of 23 (95.6%) patients. SLE impacted clinical management in all 22 patients (100%) by establishing tissue diagnosis in 19 and/or altering subsequent treatment plan in 5. Adverse event of transient hypoxia was observed in one patient (4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A very experienced EUS team required SLE in 1.1% of consecutive examinations. Our findings suggest that when used, 95% of patients benefitted as it had a significant impact on their clinical management.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Walled-off Necrosis Drainage.

Walled-off necrosis is a well-recognized complication of necrotizing pancreatitis that can cause sepsis, luminal or ductal obstruction, or persistent unwellness requiring multidisciplinary care. Recent data suggest that minimally invasive endoscopic treatment strategies are preferred over more invasive surgical approaches. Although endoscopic transmural drainage with or without necrosectomy is the primary approach for patients requiring an intervention, for collections not amenable to endoscopic approach, percutaneous drain placement followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopic cystogastrostomy with internal debridement are other alternatives. More studies are required to optimize post-procedure care to shorten the length of stay and minimize resource utilization.

Primary leiomyosarcoma of the pancreas with metastasis to the spleen.

Video 1EUS evaluation of the pancreas and the spleen.