Rectal indomethacin cut odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis in real-world study

A single, 100-mg rectal dose of indomethacin cut the odds of moderate to severe pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) by 85% in a single-center retrospective study of more than 4,000 patients reported in the August issue of Gastroenterology.

The effect extended to low-risk patients and those with malignant biliary obstruction, who make up the majority of ERCP patients in community practice, said Nikhil R. Thiruvengadam, MD, and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania. “Usage of rectal indomethacin in current clinical practice is low, as most endoscopists outside of referral centers perform ERCP for indications that are considered low-risk for PEP [post-ERCP pancreatitis], and until now, there were no data to support a benefit of rectal NSAIDs in this population,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. Their “real-world analysis” clearly shows the benefits of rectal indomethacin in low-risk patients and supports its increased use after ERCP, they added.

Pancreatitis, the most common complication of ERCP, affected 2%-9% of patients in prior studies and costs about $200 million in the United States annually, the investigators noted. Pancreatic duct stents help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, but require experience to place and have their own complications that limit their use in low-risk patients. Past studies of rectal indomethacin after ERCP reported mixed results and mainly focused on high-risk patients, leaving questions about whether to routinely use this NSAID after ERCP, said the researchers (Gastroenterology. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.04.048). Their study included 4,017 patients who underwent ERCP at the University of Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2015. From 2012 onward, nearly all patients received 100 mg rectal indomethacin immediately after the duodenoscope was withdrawn. This indomethacin group included 2,007 patients, while 2,010 patients in the study did not receive rectal indomethacin. In all, 95 (4.73%) untreated patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with only 40 (1.99%) patients who received indomethacin, for a 65% reduction in the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.51; P less than .001). Rectal indomethacin also led to an 83% drop in the odds of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P less than .001) and showed very similar protective effects for patients with malignant obstruction (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P less than .001] and 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P less than 0.001, respectively).

Rectal indomethacin was particularly beneficial for patients with malignant obstruction and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the investigators noted. Such patients had post-ERCP rates of 2.31% when they received rectal indomethacin and 7.53% otherwise (P less than .001). They also had a nearly sevenfold lower rate of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

Treatment did not affect the chances of perforation and did not cause anaphylaxis, but was tied to a slightly higher rate of postprocedural gastrointestinal bleeding among sphincterotomy patients (0.65% with treatment versus 0.45% without; P = .52). However, sphincterotomy patients were much less likely to develop pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin than when they did not (0% and 9.58% of patients, respectively; P = .003).

“The majority of ERCPs were performed by experienced endoscopists at a tertiary care center, which may have limited the effects of variable procedural skills on the risk of PEP,” the researchers said. “Therefore, generalizability of our findings to other populations may be limited. However, it should be noted that the overall PEP rate in both the unexposed and indomethacin groups was fairly low and similar to large community-based estimates, suggesting that our overall patient population was of similar overall risk.” The study was not powered to assess the combined effects of rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stents, they noted.

The investigators reported no funding sources and had no disclosures.

A single, 100-mg rectal dose of indomethacin cut the odds of moderate to severe pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) by 85% in a single-center retrospective study of more than 4,000 patients reported in the August issue of Gastroenterology.

The effect extended to low-risk patients and those with malignant biliary obstruction, who make up the majority of ERCP patients in community practice, said Nikhil R. Thiruvengadam, MD, and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania. “Usage of rectal indomethacin in current clinical practice is low, as most endoscopists outside of referral centers perform ERCP for indications that are considered low-risk for PEP [post-ERCP pancreatitis], and until now, there were no data to support a benefit of rectal NSAIDs in this population,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. Their “real-world analysis” clearly shows the benefits of rectal indomethacin in low-risk patients and supports its increased use after ERCP, they added.

Pancreatitis, the most common complication of ERCP, affected 2%-9% of patients in prior studies and costs about $200 million in the United States annually, the investigators noted. Pancreatic duct stents help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, but require experience to place and have their own complications that limit their use in low-risk patients. Past studies of rectal indomethacin after ERCP reported mixed results and mainly focused on high-risk patients, leaving questions about whether to routinely use this NSAID after ERCP, said the researchers (Gastroenterology. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.04.048). Their study included 4,017 patients who underwent ERCP at the University of Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2015. From 2012 onward, nearly all patients received 100 mg rectal indomethacin immediately after the duodenoscope was withdrawn. This indomethacin group included 2,007 patients, while 2,010 patients in the study did not receive rectal indomethacin. In all, 95 (4.73%) untreated patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with only 40 (1.99%) patients who received indomethacin, for a 65% reduction in the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.51; P less than .001). Rectal indomethacin also led to an 83% drop in the odds of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P less than .001) and showed very similar protective effects for patients with malignant obstruction (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P less than .001] and 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P less than 0.001, respectively).

Rectal indomethacin was particularly beneficial for patients with malignant obstruction and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the investigators noted. Such patients had post-ERCP rates of 2.31% when they received rectal indomethacin and 7.53% otherwise (P less than .001). They also had a nearly sevenfold lower rate of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

Treatment did not affect the chances of perforation and did not cause anaphylaxis, but was tied to a slightly higher rate of postprocedural gastrointestinal bleeding among sphincterotomy patients (0.65% with treatment versus 0.45% without; P = .52). However, sphincterotomy patients were much less likely to develop pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin than when they did not (0% and 9.58% of patients, respectively; P = .003).

“The majority of ERCPs were performed by experienced endoscopists at a tertiary care center, which may have limited the effects of variable procedural skills on the risk of PEP,” the researchers said. “Therefore, generalizability of our findings to other populations may be limited. However, it should be noted that the overall PEP rate in both the unexposed and indomethacin groups was fairly low and similar to large community-based estimates, suggesting that our overall patient population was of similar overall risk.” The study was not powered to assess the combined effects of rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stents, they noted.

The investigators reported no funding sources and had no disclosures.

A single, 100-mg rectal dose of indomethacin cut the odds of moderate to severe pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) by 85% in a single-center retrospective study of more than 4,000 patients reported in the August issue of Gastroenterology.

The effect extended to low-risk patients and those with malignant biliary obstruction, who make up the majority of ERCP patients in community practice, said Nikhil R. Thiruvengadam, MD, and his associates at the University of Pennsylvania. “Usage of rectal indomethacin in current clinical practice is low, as most endoscopists outside of referral centers perform ERCP for indications that are considered low-risk for PEP [post-ERCP pancreatitis], and until now, there were no data to support a benefit of rectal NSAIDs in this population,” they wrote in Gastroenterology. Their “real-world analysis” clearly shows the benefits of rectal indomethacin in low-risk patients and supports its increased use after ERCP, they added.

Pancreatitis, the most common complication of ERCP, affected 2%-9% of patients in prior studies and costs about $200 million in the United States annually, the investigators noted. Pancreatic duct stents help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, but require experience to place and have their own complications that limit their use in low-risk patients. Past studies of rectal indomethacin after ERCP reported mixed results and mainly focused on high-risk patients, leaving questions about whether to routinely use this NSAID after ERCP, said the researchers (Gastroenterology. 2016 May 20. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.04.048). Their study included 4,017 patients who underwent ERCP at the University of Pennsylvania between 2009 and 2015. From 2012 onward, nearly all patients received 100 mg rectal indomethacin immediately after the duodenoscope was withdrawn. This indomethacin group included 2,007 patients, while 2,010 patients in the study did not receive rectal indomethacin. In all, 95 (4.73%) untreated patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared with only 40 (1.99%) patients who received indomethacin, for a 65% reduction in the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.51; P less than .001). Rectal indomethacin also led to an 83% drop in the odds of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P less than .001) and showed very similar protective effects for patients with malignant obstruction (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P less than .001] and 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P less than 0.001, respectively).

Rectal indomethacin was particularly beneficial for patients with malignant obstruction and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the investigators noted. Such patients had post-ERCP rates of 2.31% when they received rectal indomethacin and 7.53% otherwise (P less than .001). They also had a nearly sevenfold lower rate of moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

Treatment did not affect the chances of perforation and did not cause anaphylaxis, but was tied to a slightly higher rate of postprocedural gastrointestinal bleeding among sphincterotomy patients (0.65% with treatment versus 0.45% without; P = .52). However, sphincterotomy patients were much less likely to develop pancreatitis when they received rectal indomethacin than when they did not (0% and 9.58% of patients, respectively; P = .003).

“The majority of ERCPs were performed by experienced endoscopists at a tertiary care center, which may have limited the effects of variable procedural skills on the risk of PEP,” the researchers said. “Therefore, generalizability of our findings to other populations may be limited. However, it should be noted that the overall PEP rate in both the unexposed and indomethacin groups was fairly low and similar to large community-based estimates, suggesting that our overall patient population was of similar overall risk.” The study was not powered to assess the combined effects of rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stents, they noted.

The investigators reported no funding sources and had no disclosures.