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.

Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Sphincter of Oddi Disorders.

The concept that sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) can cause attacks of biliary-type pain in postcholecystectomy patients and those with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis, and that endoscopic sphincterotomy can ameliorate symptoms, remains unproven. The Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (EPISOD) study of patients without objective evidence for biliary obstruction showed no difference in outcomes between those who underwent sphincterotomy or sham treatment.1 To date, there have been no studies examining the characteristics of patients who still are being offered endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for SOD since the EPISOD publication, although the absolute number appears to have declined.2.

Development of an automated ERCP Quality Report Card using structured data fields.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Measuring adherence to ERCP quality indicators (QIs) is confounded by variability in indications, maneuvers, and documentation styles. We hypothesized that incorporation of mandatory, structured data fields within reporting software would permit accurate measurement of QI adherence rates and facilitate generation of a provider ERCP report card. METHODS: At two referral centers, endoscopy documentation software was modified to generate provider alerts prior to finalizing the note. The alerts reminded the provider to document the following components in a standardized manner: indication, altered anatomy, prior interventions, and QIs deemed high priority by society consensus, study authors, or both. Adherence rates for each QI were calculated in aggregate and by provider via data extraction directly from the procedure documentation software. Medical records were reviewed manually to measure the accuracy of automated data extraction. Accuracy of automated measurement for each QI was calculated against results derived by manual review. RESULTS: During the 9-month study period, 1,376 ERCP procedures were completed by 8 providers. Manual medical record review confirmed high (98-100%) accuracy of automatic extraction of ERCP QIs from the endoscopy report, including cannulation rate of the native papilla and complete extraction of common bile duct stones. An ERCP report card was generated, allowing for individual comparison of adherence to ERCP QIs with colleagues at their institution and others. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, use of mandatory, structured data fields within clinical ERCP reports permit the accurate measurement of high priority ERCP QIs and the subsequent generation of interval report cards.

Comparison of Urologist- vs Gastroenterologist-Directed Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pancreaticolithiasis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for pancreaticolithiasis is most commonly performed by urologists. We investigated the effects of transitioning from urologist- to gastroenterologist-directed ESWL on case complexity, process measures, and duct clearance. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ESWL for pancreaticolithiasis from 2014 through 2019 at a single center. We collected demographic, clinical, radiographic, and procedural data in duplicate and compared case complexity and process measures between the periods the procedure was performed by urologists (January 2014 through February 2017; 18 patients, 0.47 patients/month) vs gastroenterologists (March 2017 through December 2019; 61 patients; 1.79 patients/month). We also compared data on pancreatic duct stone characteristics and technical success (duct clearance, determined by imaging analysis). RESULTS: There were no differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, pancreatic stone morphology, or time from referral to ESWL during the period the procedure was performed by urologists vs gastroenterologists. Patients received a higher mean number of ESWL shocks per session during the gastroenterology period (4341) than during the urology period (3117) (P < .001). A higher proportion of patients underwent same-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during the gastroenterology time period (66%) than the urology time period (6%) (P < .001). A higher proportion of patients had partial or complete duct clearance during the gastroenterology period (71%) than during the urology period (44%) (P = .04). During the urology period, a higher proportion of patients were hospitalized following ESWL, although there was no difference in captured adverse events between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from urologist- to gastroenterologist-directed ESWL did not affect case complexity or wait times for ESWL. However, the transition did result in increased procedure volume, more shocks per ESWL session, and improved duct clearance.

Development and initial validation of an instrument for video-based assessment of technical skill in ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The accurate measurement of technical skill in ERCP is essential for endoscopic training, quality assurance, and coaching of this procedure. Hypothesizing that technical skill can be measured by analysis of ERCP videos, we aimed to develop and validate a video-based ERCP skill assessment tool. METHODS: Based on review of procedural videos, the task of ERCP was deconstructed into its basic components by an expert panel that developed an initial version of the Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT). Subsequently, 2 modified Delphi panels and 3 validation exercises were conducted with the goal of iteratively refining the tool. Fully crossed generalizability studies investigated the contributions of assessors, ERCP performance, and technical elements to reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-nine technical elements were initially generated from task deconstruction. Ultimately, after iterative refinement, the tool comprised 6 technical elements and 11 subelements. The developmental process achieved consistent improvements in the performance characteristics of the tool with every iteration. For the most recent version of the tool, BESAT-v4, the generalizability coefficient (a reliability index) was .67. Most variance in BESAT scores (43.55%) was attributed to differences in endoscopists' skill, indicating that the tool can reliably differentiate between endoscopists based on video analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Video-based assessment of ERCP skill appears to be feasible with a novel instrument that demonstrates favorable validity evidence. Future steps include determining whether the tool can discriminate between endoscopists of varying experience levels and predict important outcomes in clinical practice.

Adverse Events and Reinterventions Following Pancreatic Endoscopic Sphincterotomy.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic endoscopic sphincterotomy (PES) is an independent risk factor for short- and long-term adverse events (AEs) of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. We sought to measure PES-specific AEs and trends in the use of PES. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of consecutive patients who underwent first-time PES between June 2008 and June 2015. Indications for PES were dichotomized: (1) structural pathology (chronic pancreatitis and local complications of acute pancreatitis) and (2) suspected sphincter pathology (idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction). Rates of AEs and pancreatic orifice reinterventions were measured, with reintervention rates limited to those having a minimum of 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Of 567 patients, 198 (34.9%) underwent PES for structural and 369 (65.1%) for suspected sphincter pathology. Rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and unplanned hospitalization were high when PES was originally performed for suspected sphincter pathology (12.6% and 14.6%, respectively). The overall reintervention rate was 28.9% and significantly greater for sphincter (41.7%) compared with structural pathology (13.5%, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: The likelihood of reintervention after PES is high, particularly when the primary indication is suspected sphincter pathology such as idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis. Further prospective studies are needed to clarify if and when this maneuver confers significant benefit to patients.

Trends in the timing of inpatient ERCP relative to cholecystectomy: a nationwide database studied longitudinally.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ERCP has largely replaced common bile duct exploration for therapy of common bile duct pathology, yet its use as a purely diagnostic test has declined. Among inpatients, we hypothesized that timing between ERCP and cholecystectomy (CCY) has changed. The objectives were to measure temporal trends in the timing between inpatient ERCP and CCY and to examine factors associated with delays. METHODS: We used the National Inpatient Sample between 1998 and 2013 to classify admissions for gallstone-related diagnoses undergoing inpatient CCY and ERCP by timing relative to CCY: within (±) 1 day, ≥2 days before, and ≥2 days after. Logistic regression and Poisson regression were used to determine pattern utilization and association of ERCP timing on hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Between 1998 and 2013, the proportion of admissions for CCY associated with same-stay ERCP increased (14.5% in 1998 to 17.3% in 2013, P < .001), and approximately two-thirds of ERCPs were performed within 1 day of CCY. After adjusting for covariates, the mean adjusted length of stay remained significantly shorter for patients who underwent CCY within 1 day of ERCP (5.13 vs 7.48 days for ERCP ≥2 days before and vs 7.41 days for ERCP ≥2 days after, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of inpatient ERCP in conjunction with CCY has increased minimally between 1998 and 2013, whereas length of stay has decreased. ERCPs performed within 1 day of CCY were associated with shorter hospital length of stay, suggesting delays between inpatient procedures should be minimized unless medical comorbidities preclude it.

How much pain relief do patients expect after cholecystectomy?

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy is a common operation, increasingly performed, in the USA, for "functional gall bladder disorder" (FGBD). Outcomes of these surgeries are uncertain. In planning a study of FGBD, we needed to define the best outcome measures. METHODS: We sought the opinions of patients (52 with FGBD and 100 with stones for comparison) coming to cholecystectomy. They were asked to respond in four ways about the minimum benefit they would count as "success." RESULTS: We found that most patients do not expect cholecystectomy to relieve their pain-related disability completely, regardless of the presence or absence of stones. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies of the success of surgery should use patient-centered outcome assessments, such as PGIC (patient's global impression of change), in addition to objective measures of the impact of treatment on key symptoms, such as pain.

The EPISOD study: long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The EPISOD (Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction) study randomized patients with post-cholecystectomy pain, and little or no objective evidence for biliary obstruction, to sphincterotomy or sham intervention. Results at 1 year showed no benefit for the active treatment. We now report the outcomes at up to 5 years. METHODS: One hundred three patients completing 1 year, and still blinded to treatment allocation, were enrolled and followed by phone every 6 months for a median of 58 months (range, 17-71 months). Their success was assessed at the final visit by 2 criteria: (1) a low pain score (Recurrent Abdominal Pain and Disability instrument [RAPID] <6) and (2) much or very much improved on the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) questionnaire (both with no repeat intervention and not taking narcotics). RESULTS: By the RAPID criteria, success rates for the patients in the sphincterotomy and sham arms were similar: 26/65 (40%) versus 16/38 (42%), respectively. However, by the PGIC criteria, actively treated patients fared worse: 16/43 (37%) versus 16/22 (73%). A total of 75 patients underwent active treatment during the entire study. Their success rate by the RAPID criteria was 31 (41%) compared with 16 (62%) who had no active treatment at any time. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm our initial report that endoscopic sphincterotomy is no better than sham intervention in these patients (and, by some criteria, worse), and that ERCP can no longer be recommended. The patients have genuine and often severe symptoms, and further research is needed to establish effective management. (Clinical trial registration number: 00688662 05/3/2008.).

A survey of credentialing for ERCP in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are limited data measuring the variability in standards used by hospitals for credentialing physicians to ERCP in the United States. METHODS: We performed an electronic survey of U.S. gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Among 1126 respondents, 21% reported that their hospitals had no written guidelines for initial credentialing, and 59% reported that their hospitals had no written guidelines for repeat credentialing. Among those with guidelines, less than half had any of the criteria recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to improve the credentialing process to enhance practice and to protect patients. An easy-to-use national system for recording and reporting ERCP quality data, like that of the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, is needed.

Pancreatic Enzyme Supplements Are Not Effective for Relieving Abdominal Pain in Patients with Chronic Pancreatitis: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Background. Pancreatic enzyme supplementation is widely used to treat pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis, despite little evidence for efficacy. We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to investigate its effectiveness. Methods. All randomized controlled parallel or crossover trials in patients with chronic pancreatitis comparing pancreatic enzyme supplementation to placebo were included. The main outcome was improvement in pain score or reduced analgesic consumption. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Mantel-Haenszel random effect model meta-analysis was used whenever methodologically appropriate. Results. Five out of 434 retrieved studies were included in the systematic review. All studies used relatively similar methodology. Four studies using enteric-coated pancreatic enzyme supplementation failed to show any improvement in pain as compared to placebo. The only study using non-enteric-coated enzymes did show reduction in the pain score. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in both analyses. Random model meta-analysis of three studies showed no significant difference in the mean of daily pain score (mean difference: 0.09 (1.57-1.39), p = 0.91) or average weekly analgesic consumption (mean difference: -0.30 (-2.37-1.77), p = 0.77) between the periods of administering pancreatic enzyme supplementation versus placebo. Conclusion. Pancreatic enzyme supplements do not seem to relieve abdominal pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis and should not be prescribed solely for this purpose, given their significant cost and potential side effects.