Comparison between loop-tip guidewire-assisted and conventional endoscopic cannulation in high risk patients.

BACKGROUND: The guidewire biliary cannulation (GWC) technique may increase the cannulation rate and decrease the risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. The aim of our multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of an atraumatic loop-tip guidewire reduces the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) compared with the standard contrast-assisted cannulation (CC) technique. METHODS: From June 2012 to December 2013, a total of 320 patients who had a naïve papilla and were referred for ERCP were randomly assigned to the GWC group (n = 160) or the CC group (n = 160). GWC or CC was randomly used. In cases of failed cannulation in both arms after crossover, biliary access was attempted with alternative techniques (e. g., dual-wire technique, pancreatic duct stenting, precut). RESULTS: The biliary cannulation rates were 81 % in the GWC group and 73 % in the CC group (P = n. s.). Following crossover, cannulation was successful in 8 % and 11 % of patients in the GWC and CC groups, respectively. With use of an alternative technique, the cannulation rates were 98 % in the GWC group and 96 % in the CC group, respectively. The rates of PEP were 5 % in the GWC group and 12 % in the CC group (P = 0.027). The post-interventional complication rates did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: GWC with the new wire guide is associated with a lower rate of PEP in comparison with the CC technique. Clinical trial reference number: NCT01771419.

Is esophageal pH monitoring used appropriately in an open-access system? A prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the referral patterns and indications for esophageal pH monitoring in an open-access system and to determine whether these indications conform to practice guidelines of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). METHODS: A total of 851 consecutive patients referred for ambulatory pH monitoring to nine open-access gastrointestinal units over a 12-month period received a structured interview. The indication for the examination was decided by the physician performing the procedure, on the basis of the patient's clinical history and main complaint. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-three (38%) examinations were for indications in accordance with the guidelines. The proportion of appropriate requests in each center ranged from 34% to 47%. This figure was not significantly different in larger gastrointestinal units (more than 150 examinations per year) and smaller ones (35% and 40%; p= 0.14). The proportion of appropriate requests was 45% for gastroenterologists, 38% for surgeons, 32% for other specialists, and 24% for primary care physicians (PCPs) (p < 0.001). The percentage of appropriateness was significantly different between gastrointestinal specialists and PCPs (p < 0.001 vs gastroenterologists, p= 0.015 vs GI surgeons), and between gastroenterologists and other specialists (p= 0.006). The underuse of an empirical trial of acid-suppression therapy in patients with suspected reflux disease and the overuse of this test to confirm a diagnosis in patients with erosive esophagitis and in endoscopy-negative cases with typical symptoms responding completely to antisecretory therapy accounted for most of the referrals, which was not in accordance with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-access system, a high proportion of esophageal pH studies are done for indications not consistent with published guidelines, particularly among the examinations not requested by gastrointestinal specialists. Further education is still needed on the appropriate use of esophageal pH monitoring and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).