[Successful Management of Periampullary Diverticular Bleeding with Hemoclipping Using Side-viewing Endoscope during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography].

Periampullary diverticulum is commonly found during endoscopy and can occur at any age although its prevalence increases with age. Periampullary diverticular bleeding is a rare and difficult to diagnose during clinical practice because of its unique appearance and location. This often can lead to massive bleeding and interfere with adequate bleeding control. Endoscopic management on duodenal diverticular bleeding is limited compared to colonic diverticular bleeding due to lack of experience. Herein, we report a case of active bleeding from a periampullary diverticulum during bile duct stone extraction diagnosed by side-viewing endoscope and successfully controlled using hemoclips without any complications.

Double guidewire technique vs transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy in difficult biliary cannulation.

AIM: To compare the outcomes between double-guidewire technique (DGT) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) in patients with difficult biliary cannulation. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized study conducted in single tertiary referral hospital in Korea. Between January 2005 and September 2010. A total of 71 patients, who bile duct cannulation was not possible and selective pancreatic duct cannulation was achieved, were randomized into DGT (n = 34) and TPS (n = 37) groups. DGT or TPS was done for selective biliary cannulation. We measured the technical success rates of biliary cannulation, median cannulation time, and procedure related complications. RESULTS: The distribution of patients after randomization was balanced, and both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics, except the higher percentage of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in the DGT group (55.9% vs 13.5%, P < 0.001). Successful cannulation rate and mean cannulation times in DGT and TPS groups were 91.2% vs 91.9% and 14.1 ± 13.2 min vs 15.4 ± 17.9 min, P = 0.732, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups. The overall incidence of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis was 38.2% vs 10.8%, P < 0.011 in the DGT group and the TPS group; post-procedure pancreatitis was significantly higher in the DGT group. But the overall incidence of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia was no significant difference between the two groups; DGT group vs TPS group: 14.7% vs 16.2%, P < 1.0. CONCLUSION: When free bile duct cannulation was difficult and selective pancreatic duct cannulation was achieved, DGT and TPS facilitated biliary cannulation and showed similar success rates. However, post-procedure pancreatitis was significantly higher in the DGT group.

The use of gabexate mesylate and ulinastatin for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Only a few pharmacologic agents have been shown to have potential efficacy for the prophylactic treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The aim of this study was to determine whether prophylactic gabexate and ulinastatin can decrease the incidence of PEP. METHODS: From January 2005 to April 2010, 1,679 patients undergoing ERCP treatment were consecutively enrolled in the study. After selective exclusion, a total of 1,480 patients were included in the analysis. The patients were separated into 3 groups according to the prophylactic administration of gabexate (593 patients), ulinastatin (229 patients), or saline solution (658 patients) and analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome measurements were the incidence of pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia. RESULTS: PEP occurred in 21 of the 593 (3.5%) patients who received gabexate, 16 of the 229 (7.0%) patients who received ulinastatin, and 48 of the 658 (7.3%) patients who received a saline solution. The incidence of PEP was significantly different between the gabexate and ulinastatin or saline solution groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gabexate prophylaxis is effective in preventing PEP. However, there is no difference in the beneficial effects of the prophylactic administration of ulinastatin and a saline solution.