Pancreas and Biliary Tract

In the United States, endoscopists who participate in advanced endoscopy fellowship programs use rectal NSAIDs more often than pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.

“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
 

A survey of American endoscopists

Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.

The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.

The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
 

Respondents had years of experience

Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.

All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.

About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.

In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
 

Results may reflect recall bias

The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.

Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.

Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.

The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.

AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/news/help-your-patients-understand-ercp-and-scope-safety.  

In the United States, endoscopists who participate in advanced endoscopy fellowship programs use rectal NSAIDs more often than pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.

“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
 

A survey of American endoscopists

Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.

The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.

The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
 

Respondents had years of experience

Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.

All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.

About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.

In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
 

Results may reflect recall bias

The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.

Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.

Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.

The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.

AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/news/help-your-patients-understand-ercp-and-scope-safety.  

In the United States, endoscopists who participate in advanced endoscopy fellowship programs use rectal NSAIDs more often than pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), according to research published online in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. In addition, methods for PEP prophylaxis in clinical practice are not implemented to the extent that the current evidence warrants.

“Future studies should not only further clarify the optimal PEP prophylaxis strategy, but should also focus on strategies to improve the implementation of evidence-based PEP prophylaxis techniques,” wrote Patrick Avila, MD, MPH, gastroenterologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.
 

A survey of American endoscopists

Approximately 4% of patients who undergo biliopancreatic endoscopy develop PEP, which has a mortality rate of 3%. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and rectal NSAIDs to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP in patients at high risk. The ASGE further suggests that rectal indomethacin may decrease the risk and severity of PEP in patients at average risk.

The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) recommends rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography). Several surveys of European endoscopists, however, indicate that relatively few respondents have adopted the recommended prophylactic techniques. The literature does not contain information about practice patterns among American endoscopists, and Dr. Avila and colleagues decided to investigate this question.

The researchers developed a 16-question online survey to assess current practice patterns with regard to PEP prophylaxis. They defined ERCPs that entailed a high risk for PEP as any that involved pancreatic or precut sphincterotomy, traumatic biliary sphincterotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, injection of the pancreatic duct, extensive pancreatic duct instrumentation, difficult cannulation, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous PEP, or a female patient. Dr. Avila and colleagues distributed the survey to 233 advanced endoscopists involved in advanced endoscopy fellowship training programs.
 

Respondents had years of experience

Sixty-two endoscopists (26.7%) completed the survey. Respondents’ mean age was 47 years, and most respondents (74.6%) had been performing ERCP for more than 5 years. Almost all respondents (95%) worked at a tertiary referral center, and all worked with fellows.

All respondents reported having used pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent PEP. Most responders (72%) used pancreatic duct stent placement only in patients at high risk of PEP, and 64% reported using pancreatic duct stent placement in 25% or less of the ERCPs that they had performed. Four respondents (6.8%) used pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP in more than half of ERCPs. Among endoscopists who rarely use pancreatic duct stent placement for PEP, the major reasons cited included concern about increased risk of PEP with failed pancreatic duct insertion, the belief that stents do not provide additional benefit beyond pharmacologic prophylaxis, and difficulties in following up patients to ensure stent passage.

About 98% of respondents reported using rectal NSAIDs for PEP. Thirty-four respondents (59.7%) used this treatment only for patients at high risk, and 23 respondents (40.1%) used it for patients at average risk. Among respondents who used rectal NSAIDs to prevent PEP, 67.8% used the treatment in half or more of ERCPs. The NSAID of choice was indomethacin for all respondents. One respondent reported never using rectal NSAIDs for PEP because of doubts about its efficacy, in addition to cost and availability.

In addition, 49 respondents (83.0%) reported using rapid intravenous fluids to prevent PEP. None reported using octreotide or antibiotics to prevent PEP.
 

Results may reflect recall bias

The survey reveals “a significant divergence from the scientific evidence in how PEP techniques are used in routine clinical practice,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues. Several studies, including a randomized controlled trial, support the use of rectal NSAIDs as prophylaxis as patients at average risk of PEP, but less than half of respondents reported using it. The ASGE guidelines state that this treatment is “reasonable,” but do not advocate for it. “If appropriate, adopting a stronger stance in our practice guidelines may lead to further widespread use of rectal NSAIDs in this group of patients,” wrote Dr. Avila and colleagues.

Pancreatic duct stent placement is a difficult procedure to perform. The success rate in one British study was 51%, and a study of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists found a failure rate of 7%. It therefore may not be surprising that pancreatic duct stent placement was used less often than rectal NSAIDs among respondents, according to the authors.

Dr. Avila and colleagues acknowledged that the survey’s low response rate could have introduced nonresponse bias into the findings. They also stated that the study may have been affected by selection and recall biases. The results thus may not be generalizable to other practice settings, they concluded.

The authors did not report any study funding or disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Avila P et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.013.

AGA offers resources to help your patients understand ECRP and scope safety. Learn more at https://www.gastro.org/news/help-your-patients-understand-ercp-and-scope-safety.  

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

A single-use duodenoscope may reduce the risk of postendoscopic infections while maintaining a high level of user satisfaction, based on a recent multicenter case series study.

At six tertiary referral centers in the United States, seven expert endoscopists performed more than 70 procedures with disposable scopes, ultimately reporting a median satisfaction score of 9 out of 10, according to lead author Venkataraman Muthusamy, MD, of UCLA Health in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Writing for Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the investigators noted that duodenoscope-related infections represent a serious threat to public health, particularly when considered in the context of antibiotic resistance and the high number of endoscopic procedures performed annually.

“Solutions to the duodenoscope contamination problem remain elusive,” the investigators wrote. “Evidence-based interventions are important to guard against labor-intensive measures that are unfeasible, unaffordable, and potentially ineffective.”

According to the investigators, routine culture surveillance and field investigations following suspected duodenoscope-related infections may fail to detect culprit bacteria or shortcomings in equipment reprocessing; and even when performed correctly, standard reprocessing can be insufficient.

“Using current reprocessing techniques, improved compliance with reprocessing guidelines is not a definitive solution because reusable duodenoscope contamination may be present even after high-level disinfection or sterilization,” the investigators wrote, going on to cite Food and Drug Administration–reported contamination rates of 5.4% for high-concern organisms.

To determine if a single-use endoscope could overcome such risks, the investigators first conducted preclinical testing with animal laboratories and simulations, finding that a single-use duodenoscope was comparable with three reusable scope models. The present study, which included 73 patients with normal pancreaticobiliary anatomy, evaluated clinical feasibility, safety, and performance. The single-use duodenoscope was a first-generation device by Boston Scientific named EXALT Model D.

Of the 73 patients, 13 underwent roll-in maneuvers and 60 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The most common cause for ERCP was exchange or removal of biliary stent (55.0%), followed by evaluation of biliary defect or stricture (26.7%), then bile duct stone clearance (18.3%). The majority of ERCPs had an American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) procedural complexity grade of 2 (43.3%) or 3 (43.3%), while a minority were graded 1 (11.7%) or, most severe, 4 (1.7%).

Two ERCPs required crossover to a reusable duodenoscope for completion. In the first instance, crossover was needed because dilation of a biliary stricture was unsuccessful, with the endoscopist reporting difficulties maneuvering the disposable scope, possibly because of shaft stiffness. In the second case, crossover was elected because cannulation was unsuccessful with standard access techniques; however, cannulation also was not possible with the reusable scope, necessitating an alternative approach.

According to the investigators, safety signals were comparable with standard practice. No serious, scope-related adverse events were reported. Serious adverse events of any kind were relatively uncommon; three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis within 7 days of ERCP, one developed a postsphincterotomy bleed, and one had worsening of a preexisting infection that required hospitalization.

As described above, the endoscopists reported a median overall satisfaction score of 9 out of 10. Specifically, 17 out of 23 scored ERCP maneuvers (73.9%) received a median 5 out of 5 performance rating. Out of 1,289 total ratings, almost all (98.1%) received a performance rating of at least 3 out of 5. Low-scoring performance characteristics (receiving at least one “1” rating), included elevator function; aspects of positioning; visualization; image quality, brightness, or appearance; and ease and ability of passing ancillary devices through the channel of the single-use duodenoscope and into the papilla.

“The new device provides an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes that may harbor residual contamination despite appropriately implemented reprocessing,” the investigators concluded.

They also pointed out that switching to disposable scopes would not completely put an end to postendoscopic infections.

“The single-use duodenoscope is a timely and innovative option to improve exogenous infection control, and must be used with awareness of the continued risk of endogenous infection, with standard infection control precautions and continued diligence in the use of existing reusable devices,” they wrote.

The study was funded by Boston Scientific. The investigators reported additional relationships with Medtronic, Ethicon/Torax, CapsoVision, and others.

SOURCE: Muthusamy V et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Oct 11. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

The American Gastroenterological Association recently issued a clinical practice update for the management of pancreatic necrosis, including 15 recommendations based on a comprehensive literature review and the experiences of leading experts.

Recommendations range from the general, such as the need for a multidisciplinary approach, to the specific, such as the superiority of metal over plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage.

The expert review, which was conducted by lead author Todd H. Baron, MD, of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and three other colleagues, was vetted by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board. In addition, the update underwent external peer review prior to publication in Gastroenterology.

In the update, the authors outlined the clinical landscape for pancreatic necrosis, including challenges posed by complex cases and a mortality rate as high as 30%.

“Successful management of these patients requires expert multidisciplinary care by gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition,” the investigators wrote.

They went on to explain how management has evolved over the past 10 years.

“Whereby major surgical intervention and debridement was once the mainstay of therapy for patients with symptomatic necrotic collections, a minimally invasive approach focusing on percutaneous drainage and/or endoscopic drainage or debridement is now favored,” they wrote. They added that debridement is still generally agreed to be the best choice for cases of infected necrosis or patients with sterile necrosis “marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction, biliary obstruction, recurrent acute pancreatitis, fistulas, or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS).”

Other elements of care, however, remain debated, the investigators noted, which has led to variations in multiple aspects of care, such as interventional timing, intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and nutrition. Within this framework, the present practice update is aimed at offering “concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition.”

Among these pieces of advice, the authors emphasized that routine prophylactic antibiotics and/or antifungals to prevent infected necrosis are unsupported by multiple clinical trials. When infection is suspected, the update recommends broad spectrum intravenous antibiotics, noting that, in most cases, it is unnecessary to perform CT-guided fine-needle aspiration for cultures and gram stain.

Regarding nutrition, the update recommends against “pancreatic rest”; instead, it calls for early oral intake and, if this is not possible, then initiation of total enteral nutrition. Although the authors deemed multiple routes of enteral feeding acceptable, they favored nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes, when appropriate, because of ease of placement and maintenance. For prolonged total enteral nutrition or patients unable to tolerate nasoenteric feeding, the authors recommended endoscopic feeding tube placement with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube for those who can tolerate gastric feeding or a percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube for those who cannot or have a high risk of aspiration.

As described above, the update recommends debridement for cases of infected pancreatic necrosis. Ideally, this should be performed at least 4 weeks after onset, and avoided altogether within the first 2 weeks, because of associated risks of morbidity and mortality; instead, during this acute phase, percutaneous drainage may be considered.

For walled-off pancreatic necrosis, the authors recommended transmural drainage via endoscopic therapy because this mitigates risk of pancreatocutaneous fistula. Percutaneous drainage may be considered in addition to, or in absence of, endoscopic drainage, depending on clinical status.

The remainder of the update covers decisions related to stents, other minimally invasive techniques, open operative debridement, and disconnected left pancreatic remnants, along with discussions of key supporting clinical trials.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Cook Endoscopy, Boston Scientific, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Baron TH et al. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug 31. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.064.

Review the Gastroenterology clinical guidelines collection for AGA Institute statements detailing preferred approaches to specific medical problems or issues based on the most current available data at https://www.gastrojournal.org/content/agai. 

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.

Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/pancreatitis.  

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.

Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/pancreatitis.  

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

CHICAGO – A large Danish registry-based study has confirmed an increased risk of acute pancreatitis for patients taking certain antithyroid drugs.

After 6 months of methimazole use, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 2.02, with a nonsignificant risk elevation for propylthiouracil use after a similar duration, Laszlo Hegedüs, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American Thyroid Association.

“Ongoing methimazole, but not propylthiouracil, use is associated with an increased risk of acute pancreatitis,” he said.

Dr. Hegedüs, professor of endocrinology and metabolism at the University of Odense (Denmark), said that the European Medicines Association has noted postmarketing reports of acute pancreatitis in patients who received the antithyroid drug methimazole, as well as its prodrug, carbimazole. The agency has accordingly contraindicated antithyroid drug use for patients who previously experienced acute pancreatitis after receiving one of these drugs, advising that methimazole should be “discontinued immediately” should a patient develop acute pancreatitis.

However, investigation of the antithyroid drug–pancreatitis association had been limited to aggregating those case reports, so Dr. Hegedüs and colleagues decided to use Danish medical record and registry data to investigate the association in a nationwide, controlled study that looked at both duration of therapy and total antithyroid drug use.

During the period from 1995-2018, a total of 118,649 patients who used antithyroid drugs were found in the 5.5 million individuals in the Statistics Denmark registry. Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues also pulled in patient registry and national prescription registry data, as well as civil vital statistics data.

Of those who used antithyroid drugs, 103,825 patients used methimazole, and 14,824 used propylthiouracil. The researchers found 43,580 instances of hospitalization for first-time acute pancreatitis in the pooled antithyroid drug data. Of those, however, just 226 (0.5%) occurred in patients using methimazole, and 19 (0.04%) in those using propylthiouracil at the time of pancreatitis onset.

To ascertain the risk of acute pancreatitis in patients using antithyroid drugs for various durations, Dr. Hegedüs and his colleagues used a case-crossover study design. In the case-crossover technique, patients served as their own controls, because each patient was both exposed and not exposed to antithyroid drugs at some point during the study period. Antithyroid drugs are well suited to this study design, explained Dr. Hegedüs, because they are given for a limited time. A case-crossover design can be used with a small sample size and effectively controls for potentially confounding variables.

The odds ratio for acute pancreatitis in methimazole users after 3 months of exposure was 1.51, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.12-2.02. After 3 months of propylthiouracil exposure, the odds ratio for acute pancreatitis was 1.16 (95% CI 0.46-2.3). At 6 months, the odds ratio of 2.02 for methimazole was similarly statistically significant (95% CI, 1.50-2.78), whereas the odds ratio of 1.40 for propylthiouracil use was not significant (95% CI, 0.58-3.34).

The researchers also wanted to find out whether the cumulative drug dose affected the risk of acute pancreatitis, so they drew from the antithyroid drug population to conduct a case-control study. Here, the investigators matched data from four control patients to each case of acute pancreatitis. The researchers also controlled for sex, age, comorbidities, and prior use of drugs associated with pancreatitis.

Overall, 20% of the 692 methimazole users and their controls were men, as were 16% of the 108 propylthiouracil users, in the case-control study.

Just more than half of patients overall had a total dose exposure of 200 to 1,200 defined daily dose (DDD) – a measure developed by the World Health Organization to denote the assumed average adult dose per day of a medication – with about a quarter of patients receiving a total antithyroid drug dose more than 1,200 DDD and about 20% receiving a dose exposure of less than 200 DDD. The risk of acute pancreatitis did not increase with increased total exposure to antithyroid drugs.

“There is no evidence of a cumulative dose effect of either methimazole or propylthiouracil on the risk of acute pancreatitis,” said Dr. Hegedüs. However, “the warning of the European Medicines Agency seems justified,” he added. “The frequency of acute pancreatitis in acute methimazole users is of a similar magnitude [to that] reported for agranulocytosis,” a known, dire complication of antithyroid drug use. Patients should be advised of the potential complication and informed of signs and symptoms of acute pancreatitis, he said.

Dr. Hegedüs noted that the study had the advantage of using validated epidemiologic methods to look at drug exposure and outcomes at a nationwide scale. However, the registries from which the data were drawn also have limitations. The investigators could not determine the severity of hyperthyroidism, he said, and the relatively rare occurrence of acute pancreatitis meant that there was not sufficient statistical power to look at the subgroup of individuals who had Grave’s disease and to compare them with those with nodular toxic goiter.

He advised conducting a confirmatory study in an independent cohort, as well as further investigating the yet unknown mechanism of action for the link between the antithyroid drug and acute pancreatitis.

Dr. Hegedüs reported that he had no relevant conflicts of interest and reported no outside sources of funding.

Help your patients understand the symptoms, treatments and complications of pancreatitis by sharing AGA patient education at https://www.gastro.org/practice-guidance/gi-patient-center/topic/pancreatitis.  

SOURCE: Hegedüs, L. et al. ATA 2019, Short Call Oral Abstract 6 .

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.

Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.

FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.

“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.

Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.

FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.

“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has cleared the Pentax Medical Video ED34-i10T2 model duodenoscope for marketing in the United States, the first approved duodenoscope with a sterile, disposable elevator component.

Previous communication from the FDA has recommended to both health care facilities and duodenoscope manufacturers to transition to duodenoscopes with disposable components. Disposable designs reduce or eliminate the need for reprocessing certain components, a major source of between-patient duodenoscope contamination, the FDA said.

FDA approval for the Pentax device is based on a review through the premarket clearance pathway, and the manufacturer submitted evidence that the device is substantially equivalent to previous devices. Potential risks of using the Pentax duodenoscope include burns, electric shock, perforation, infection, and bleeding.

“Duodenoscopes with a disposable elevator component represent another major step toward lowering the risk of infection among patients who undergo procedures with these devices,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Improving the safety of duodenoscopes is a top priority for the FDA since such devices remain critical to life-saving care for many patients in the U.S.”

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.

Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.

“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.

The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.

Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.

Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.

Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.

Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.

“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.

The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.

SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.

BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.

Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.

“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.

The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.

Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.

Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.

Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.

Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.

“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.

The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.

SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.

BOSTON – Cilofexor, a nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, can improve disease biomarkers in patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), based on results of a phase 2 trial.

Will Pass/MDedge News

Compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor had significant reductions in serum alkaline phosphatase (ALP), gamma-glutamyltransferase (GGT), C-reactive protein (CRP), and primary bile acids, reported lead author Kris V. Kowdley, MD, of Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, and colleagues.

Dr. Kowdley, who presented findings at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, began by offering some context for the trial.

“There’s a strong rationale for FXR agonist therapy in PBC,” he said. “FXR is the key regulator of bile acid homeostasis, and FXR agonists have shown favorable effects on fibrosis, inflammatory activity, bile acid export and synthesis, as well as possibly effects on the microbiome and downstream in the gut.” He went on to explain that cilofexor may benefit patients with PBC, primary sclerosing cholangitis, or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), noting preclinical data that have demonstrated reductions in bile acids, inflammation, fibrosis, and portal pressure.

The present trial involved 71 patients with PBC who lacked cirrhosis and had a serum ALP level that was at least 1.67 times greater than the upper limit of normal, and an elevated serum total bilirubin that was less than 2 times the upper limit of normal. Patients were randomized to receive either cilofexor 30 mg, cilofexor 100 mg, or placebo, once daily for 12 weeks. Stratification was based on use of ursodeoxycholic acid, which was stable for at least the preceding year. Safety and efficacy were evaluated, with the latter based on liver biochemistry, serum C4, bile acids, and serum fibrosis markers.

Across the entire population, baseline median serum bilirubin was 0.6 mg/dL and median serum ALP was 286 U/L. After 12 weeks, compared with placebo, patients treated with cilofexor, particularly those who received the 100-mg dose, showed significant improvements across multiple measures of liver health. Specifically, patients in the 100-mg group achieved median reductions in ALP (–13.8%; P = .005), GGT (–47.7%; P less than .001), CRP (–33.6%; P = .03), and primary bile acids (–30.5%; P = .008). These patients also exhibited trends toward reduced aspartate aminotransferase and aminoterminal propeptide of type III procollagen; Dr. Kowdley attributed the lack of statistical significance to insufficient population size.

Highlighting magnitude of ALP improvement, Dr. Kowdley noted that reductions in ALP greater than 25% were observed in 17% and 18% of patients in the 100-mg and 30-mg cilofexor groups, respectively, versus 0% of patients in the placebo group.

Although the 100-mg dose of cilofexor appeared more effective, the higher dose did come with some trade-offs in tolerability; grade 2 or 3 pruritus was more common in patients treated with the higher dose than in those who received the 30-mg dose (39% vs. 10%). As such, 7% of patients in the 100-mg group discontinued therapy because of the pruritus, compared with no patients in the 30-mg or placebo group.

Responding to a question from a conference attendee, Dr. Kowdley said that ALP reductions to below the 1.67-fold threshold were achieved by 9% and 14% of patients who received the 30-mg dose and 100-mg dose of cilofexor, respectively.

“We believe these data support further evaluation of cilofexor for the treatment of cholestatic liver disorders,” Dr. Kowdley concluded.

The study was funded by Gilead. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Allergan, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and others.

SOURCE: Kowdley KV et al. The Liver Meeting 2019. Abstract 45.

Most patients with chronic pancreatitis (77.4%) who received an indwelling stent were still stricture free at 5 years, Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.

The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.

“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”

The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.

Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.

Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.

At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.

Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.

At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.

By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.

About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).

About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.

In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.

“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.

Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.


 

Most patients with chronic pancreatitis (77.4%) who received an indwelling stent were still stricture free at 5 years, Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.

The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.

“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”

The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.

Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.

Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.

At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.

Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.

At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.

By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.

About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).

About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.

In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.

“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.

Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.


 

Most patients with chronic pancreatitis (77.4%) who received an indwelling stent were still stricture free at 5 years, Sundeep Lakhtakia, MD, and colleagues reported in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Patients with severe disease at baseline were more than twice as likely to develop a postprocedural stricture (odds ratio, 2.4). Longer baseline stricture length was less predictive, but it was still significantly associated with increased risk (OR, 1.2), according to Dr. Lakhtakia of the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad, India, and coauthors.

The results indicate that indwelling biliary stenting is a reasonable and beneficial procedure for many of these patients, wrote Dr. Lakhtakia and coauthors.

“The major message to be taken from this study is that in patients with chronic [symptomatic] pancreatitis ... associated with benign biliary strictures, the single placement of a fully covered self-expanding metal stent for an intended indwell of 10-12 months allows more than 60% to remain free of symptoms up to 5 years later without additional intervention.”

The prospective nonrandomized study comprised 118 patients with chronic symptomatic pancreatitis and benign biliary strictures. All received a stent with removal scheduled for 10-12 months later. Patients were followed for 5 years. The primary endpoints were stricture resolution and freedom from recurrence at the end of follow-up.

Patients were a mean of 52 years old; most (83%) were male. At baseline, the mean total bilirubin was 1.4 mg/dL, and the mean alkaline phosphate level was 338.7 IU/L. Mean stricture length was 23.7 mm, but varied from 7.2 to 40 mm. Severe disease was present in 70%.

Among the cohort, five cases (4.2%) were considered treatment failures, with four lost to follow-up and one treated surgically for chronic pancreatitis progression. Another five experienced a spontaneous complete distal stent migration. The rest of the cohort (108) had their scheduled stent removal. At that time, 95 of the 118 experienced successful stent removal, without serious adverse events or the need for immediate replacement.

At 5 years, patients were reassessed, with the primary follow-up endpoint of stricture resolution. Secondary endpoints were time to stricture recurrence and/or changes in liver function tests. Overall, 79.7% (94) of the overall cohort showed stricture resolution at 5 years.

Among the 108 who had a successful removal, a longer time of stent indwell was associated with a decreased chance of recurrent placement. Among those with the longer indwell (median, 344 days), the risk reduction was 34% (OR, 0.66). Of the 94 patients with stricture resolution at stent removal, 77.4% remained stent free at 5 years.

At the end of follow-up, 56 patients had symptomatic data available. Most (53) had not experienced symptoms of biliary obstruction and/or cholestasis. The other three had been symptom free at 48 months but had incomplete or missing 5-year data.

By 5 years, 19 patients needed a new stent. Of these, 13 had symptoms of biliary obstruction.

About 23% of stented patients had a stent-related serious adverse event. These included cholangitis (9.3%), abdominal pain (5%), pancreatitis (3.4%), cholecystitis (2%), and cholestasis (1.7%).

About 80% of the 19 patients who had a stricture recurrence experienced a serious adverse event in the month before recurrent stent placement. The most common were cholangitis, cholestasis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis.

In a univariate analysis, recurrence risk was significantly associated with severe baseline disease and longer stricture length. The associations remained significant in the multivariate model.

“Strikingly, patients with initial stricture resolution at [stent] removal ... were very likely to have long-term stricture resolution” the authors noted.

Dr. Lakhtakia had no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lakhtakia S et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.037.


 

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

The course was framed with the theme, “The Practice of Gastroenterology: The Literature and the Art,” with each speaker highlighting not only the relevant updates in the literature, but also sharing the insights into the art of medical practice. The course incorporated an audience response system to fully utilize the available educational technology and increase participant engagement.

Manal Abdelmalek, MD, provided an update on the hot topic of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, including new developments in pharmacotherapy. The AGA President-elect, Hashem El-Serag, MD, MPH, AGAF, delivered a state-of-the-art presentation on the burgeoning burden of hepatocellular carcinoma and cutting-edge multidisciplinary management. Vijay Shah, MD, then reminded us of the persistent presence of alcoholic liver disease in the United States and the controversies surrounding liver transplantation in this setting. Steven Flamm, MD, completed the liver session by sharing the secrets of managing the complications of cirrhosis.

The second session, on the pancreas and biliary tract, was headed by Timothy Gardner, MD, who shared the pearls of the management of pancreatitis. Michelle Kim, MD, provided fresh and up-to-date insights on the management of pancreatic and biliary cancer, including updated technological options. Finally, Marcia Canto, MD, discussed the hot topic of pancreatic cancer and whether screening should be instituted. Both of these sessions had designated time set aside for panel discussions with questions from the audience.

This is a summary provided by the moderator of one of the AGA Postgraduate Course sessions held at DDW 2019. Dr. Ahn, MD, MS, MBA, is professor of medicine and director of clinical hepatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. He has no relevant conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Among patients with asymptomatic gallstones, the need for surgical intervention increases over time to 25%, results from a large, long-term analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones never develop symptoms and probably don’t need surgical intervention,” lead study author Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Morris-Stiff, of the department of general surgery at Cleveland Clinic, said that, while previous studies have evaluated the time to development of gallstone-related complications following identification of asymptomatic gallstones, factors associated with the need for surgical intervention in this population have not been documented. The aims of the current study were to perform a big data analysis to evaluate risk factors associated with intervention in asymptomatic gallstones and to develop a risk stratification tool to aid in patient consultations by predicting individuals likely to need future intervention for their gallstones.

The researchers included Cleveland Clinic patients with CT/US reports containing “cholelithiasis” or “gallstones” between January 1996 and December 2016. Patients were excluded if they had a concurrent or prior event, had an event within 2 months, or lacked follow-up. Data collection included demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions or surgeries, imaging features, and medication use.


Dr. Morris-Stiff and his colleagues constructed Kaplan-Meier curves to analyze time to intervention and calculated cumulative incidence ratios. They used automated forward stepwise competing risk regression to create their model and receiver operating characteristics curves to analyze it.

Of the 49,414 patients identified with asymptomatic gallstones, 22,257 met criteria for analysis. Slightly more than half (51%) were female, their mean age was 61 years, 80% were white, 16% were black, and the rest were from other racial and ethnic groups. The median follow-up was 4.5 years, and the median follow-up of patients undergoing intervention was 3.9 years. This translated to 112,111 total years of observation.

The researchers found that the cumulative incidence of intervention at 15 years was 25% and it increased linearly from the time of initial diagnosis of asymptomatic gallstones. A total of 1,762 patients (7.9%) underwent a surgical procedure, most often cholecystectomy (5.7%). Three factors were associated with a reduced risk for surgical intervention: increasing age (hazard ratio, 0.94; P less than 0.001), male gender (HR, 0.78; P less than 0.001), and statin use (HR, 0.67; P less than 0.001).

Patient variables associated with an increased need for surgical intervention included obesity (HR, 1.44; P less than 0.001) and having a hemolytic disorder (HR, 2.42; P less than 0.001). Gallstone-specific characteristics that increased the need for surgical intervention included a stone size of greater than 9 mm (HR, 1.56; P less than 0.001), the presence of sludge (HR, 1.46; P less than 0.001), the presence of a polyp (HR, 1.68; P less than 0.001), and having multiple stones (HR, 1.69; P less than 0.001).

The analysis enabled Dr. Morris-Stiff and colleagues to generate a Web-based risk score to reliably identify these patients and provide prognostic information for counseling. An app for smartphones based on the score is being developed. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Among patients with asymptomatic gallstones, the need for surgical intervention increases over time to 25%, results from a large, long-term analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones never develop symptoms and probably don’t need surgical intervention,” lead study author Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Morris-Stiff, of the department of general surgery at Cleveland Clinic, said that, while previous studies have evaluated the time to development of gallstone-related complications following identification of asymptomatic gallstones, factors associated with the need for surgical intervention in this population have not been documented. The aims of the current study were to perform a big data analysis to evaluate risk factors associated with intervention in asymptomatic gallstones and to develop a risk stratification tool to aid in patient consultations by predicting individuals likely to need future intervention for their gallstones.

The researchers included Cleveland Clinic patients with CT/US reports containing “cholelithiasis” or “gallstones” between January 1996 and December 2016. Patients were excluded if they had a concurrent or prior event, had an event within 2 months, or lacked follow-up. Data collection included demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions or surgeries, imaging features, and medication use.


Dr. Morris-Stiff and his colleagues constructed Kaplan-Meier curves to analyze time to intervention and calculated cumulative incidence ratios. They used automated forward stepwise competing risk regression to create their model and receiver operating characteristics curves to analyze it.

Of the 49,414 patients identified with asymptomatic gallstones, 22,257 met criteria for analysis. Slightly more than half (51%) were female, their mean age was 61 years, 80% were white, 16% were black, and the rest were from other racial and ethnic groups. The median follow-up was 4.5 years, and the median follow-up of patients undergoing intervention was 3.9 years. This translated to 112,111 total years of observation.

The researchers found that the cumulative incidence of intervention at 15 years was 25% and it increased linearly from the time of initial diagnosis of asymptomatic gallstones. A total of 1,762 patients (7.9%) underwent a surgical procedure, most often cholecystectomy (5.7%). Three factors were associated with a reduced risk for surgical intervention: increasing age (hazard ratio, 0.94; P less than 0.001), male gender (HR, 0.78; P less than 0.001), and statin use (HR, 0.67; P less than 0.001).

Patient variables associated with an increased need for surgical intervention included obesity (HR, 1.44; P less than 0.001) and having a hemolytic disorder (HR, 2.42; P less than 0.001). Gallstone-specific characteristics that increased the need for surgical intervention included a stone size of greater than 9 mm (HR, 1.56; P less than 0.001), the presence of sludge (HR, 1.46; P less than 0.001), the presence of a polyp (HR, 1.68; P less than 0.001), and having multiple stones (HR, 1.69; P less than 0.001).

The analysis enabled Dr. Morris-Stiff and colleagues to generate a Web-based risk score to reliably identify these patients and provide prognostic information for counseling. An app for smartphones based on the score is being developed. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Among patients with asymptomatic gallstones, the need for surgical intervention increases over time to 25%, results from a large, long-term analysis showed.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“Most patients with asymptomatic gallstones never develop symptoms and probably don’t need surgical intervention,” lead study author Gareth Morris-Stiff, MD, PhD, said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Morris-Stiff, of the department of general surgery at Cleveland Clinic, said that, while previous studies have evaluated the time to development of gallstone-related complications following identification of asymptomatic gallstones, factors associated with the need for surgical intervention in this population have not been documented. The aims of the current study were to perform a big data analysis to evaluate risk factors associated with intervention in asymptomatic gallstones and to develop a risk stratification tool to aid in patient consultations by predicting individuals likely to need future intervention for their gallstones.

The researchers included Cleveland Clinic patients with CT/US reports containing “cholelithiasis” or “gallstones” between January 1996 and December 2016. Patients were excluded if they had a concurrent or prior event, had an event within 2 months, or lacked follow-up. Data collection included demographic characteristics, comorbid conditions or surgeries, imaging features, and medication use.


Dr. Morris-Stiff and his colleagues constructed Kaplan-Meier curves to analyze time to intervention and calculated cumulative incidence ratios. They used automated forward stepwise competing risk regression to create their model and receiver operating characteristics curves to analyze it.

Of the 49,414 patients identified with asymptomatic gallstones, 22,257 met criteria for analysis. Slightly more than half (51%) were female, their mean age was 61 years, 80% were white, 16% were black, and the rest were from other racial and ethnic groups. The median follow-up was 4.5 years, and the median follow-up of patients undergoing intervention was 3.9 years. This translated to 112,111 total years of observation.

The researchers found that the cumulative incidence of intervention at 15 years was 25% and it increased linearly from the time of initial diagnosis of asymptomatic gallstones. A total of 1,762 patients (7.9%) underwent a surgical procedure, most often cholecystectomy (5.7%). Three factors were associated with a reduced risk for surgical intervention: increasing age (hazard ratio, 0.94; P less than 0.001), male gender (HR, 0.78; P less than 0.001), and statin use (HR, 0.67; P less than 0.001).

Patient variables associated with an increased need for surgical intervention included obesity (HR, 1.44; P less than 0.001) and having a hemolytic disorder (HR, 2.42; P less than 0.001). Gallstone-specific characteristics that increased the need for surgical intervention included a stone size of greater than 9 mm (HR, 1.56; P less than 0.001), the presence of sludge (HR, 1.46; P less than 0.001), the presence of a polyp (HR, 1.68; P less than 0.001), and having multiple stones (HR, 1.69; P less than 0.001).

The analysis enabled Dr. Morris-Stiff and colleagues to generate a Web-based risk score to reliably identify these patients and provide prognostic information for counseling. An app for smartphones based on the score is being developed. The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Waiting to perform cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis was associated with an increased risk of recurrent biliary events in a recent study. In a retrospective study of 234 patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis, almost 90% of recurrent biliary events occurred in patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy within 60 days of hospital discharge. The overall rate of recurrence was 19%, and over half of patients (59%) did not receive a cholecystectomy during their index hospitalization.

Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

Additionally, none of the recurrent biliary events occurred in those patients who did receive a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within the first 30 days after discharge. “It really is the case that, ‘if you snooze, you lose,’ ” said Vijay Dalapathi, MD, presenting the findings during an oral presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Dalapathi and colleagues had observed that cholecystectomy during an index hospitalization for mild biliary pancreatitis was a far from universal practice, despite guidelines recommending early cholecystectomy.

To delve further into practice patterns, Dr. Dalapathi, first author Mohammed Ullah, MD, and their coauthors at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) conducted a single-site retrospective study of patients who were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis over a 5-year period ending December 2017. Dr. Dalapathi and Dr. Ullah are both second-year gastroenterology fellows.

The study had twin primary outcome measures: cholecystectomy rates performed during an index hospitalization for gallstone pancreatitis and recurrent biliary events after hospitalization. Adult patients were included if they had a diagnosis of acute gallstone pancreatitis, with or without recurrent cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, or acute cholecystitis. Pediatric patients and those with prior cholecystectomy were excluded.

A total of 234 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 58.3 years, and patients were mostly female (57.3%) and white (91.5%). Mean body mass index was 29.1 kg/m². A total of 175 patients (74.8%) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Out of the entire cohort of patients, 138 (59%) did not have a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization. Among the patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy, 33 (24%) were deemed unsuitable candidates for the procedure, either because they were critically ill or because they were poor candidates for surgery for other reasons. No reason was provided for the nonperformance of cholecystectomy for an additional 28 patients (20%).

The remaining 75 patients (54%) were deferred to outpatient management. Looking at this subgroup of patients, Dr. Dalapathi and his coinvestigators tracked the amount of time that passed before cholecystectomy.

The researchers found that 19 patients (25%) had not had a cholecystectomy within the study period. A total of 21 patients (28%) had the procedure more than 60 days from hospitalization, and another 23 (31%) had the procedure between 30 and 60 days after hospitalization. Just 12 patients (16%) of this subgroup had their cholecystectomy within 30 days of hospitalization.

Among patients who were discharged without a cholecystectomy, Dr. Dalapathi and his coauthors found 26 recurrent biliary events (19%): 15 were gallstone pancreatitis and 10 were cholecystitis; 1 patient developed cholangitis.

The crux of the study’s findings came when the investigators looked at the association between recurrent events and cholecystectomy timing. They found no recurrent biliary events among those who received cholecystectomy while hospitalized or within the first 30 days after discharge. Of the 26 events, 3 (12%) occurred in those whose cholecystectomies came 30-60 days after discharge. The remaining 23 events (88%) were seen in those receiving a cholecystectomy more than 60 days after discharge, or not at all.

Guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and the American College of Gastroenterology all recommend early cholecystectomy after mild acute gallstone pancreatitis, said Dr. Dalapathi.

However, two separate systematic reviews including a total of 22 studies and over 3,000 patients showed that about half (48% and 51%) of patients admitted with mild acute biliary pancreatitis received a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within 14 days of the hospitalization.

Further, he said, previous work had shown recurrent biliary event rates approaching 20% for patients whose biliary pancreatitis bout was not followed by cholecystectomy, a figure in line with the rate seen in the present study.

“Cholecystectomy should be performed during index hospitalization or as soon as possible within 30 days of mild biliary pancreatitis to minimize risk of recurrent biliary events,” said Dr. Dalapathi.

The authors reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ullah M. et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 24.

SAN DIEGO – Waiting to perform cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis was associated with an increased risk of recurrent biliary events in a recent study. In a retrospective study of 234 patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis, almost 90% of recurrent biliary events occurred in patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy within 60 days of hospital discharge. The overall rate of recurrence was 19%, and over half of patients (59%) did not receive a cholecystectomy during their index hospitalization.

Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

Additionally, none of the recurrent biliary events occurred in those patients who did receive a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within the first 30 days after discharge. “It really is the case that, ‘if you snooze, you lose,’ ” said Vijay Dalapathi, MD, presenting the findings during an oral presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Dalapathi and colleagues had observed that cholecystectomy during an index hospitalization for mild biliary pancreatitis was a far from universal practice, despite guidelines recommending early cholecystectomy.

To delve further into practice patterns, Dr. Dalapathi, first author Mohammed Ullah, MD, and their coauthors at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) conducted a single-site retrospective study of patients who were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis over a 5-year period ending December 2017. Dr. Dalapathi and Dr. Ullah are both second-year gastroenterology fellows.

The study had twin primary outcome measures: cholecystectomy rates performed during an index hospitalization for gallstone pancreatitis and recurrent biliary events after hospitalization. Adult patients were included if they had a diagnosis of acute gallstone pancreatitis, with or without recurrent cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, or acute cholecystitis. Pediatric patients and those with prior cholecystectomy were excluded.

A total of 234 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 58.3 years, and patients were mostly female (57.3%) and white (91.5%). Mean body mass index was 29.1 kg/m². A total of 175 patients (74.8%) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Out of the entire cohort of patients, 138 (59%) did not have a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization. Among the patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy, 33 (24%) were deemed unsuitable candidates for the procedure, either because they were critically ill or because they were poor candidates for surgery for other reasons. No reason was provided for the nonperformance of cholecystectomy for an additional 28 patients (20%).

The remaining 75 patients (54%) were deferred to outpatient management. Looking at this subgroup of patients, Dr. Dalapathi and his coinvestigators tracked the amount of time that passed before cholecystectomy.

The researchers found that 19 patients (25%) had not had a cholecystectomy within the study period. A total of 21 patients (28%) had the procedure more than 60 days from hospitalization, and another 23 (31%) had the procedure between 30 and 60 days after hospitalization. Just 12 patients (16%) of this subgroup had their cholecystectomy within 30 days of hospitalization.

Among patients who were discharged without a cholecystectomy, Dr. Dalapathi and his coauthors found 26 recurrent biliary events (19%): 15 were gallstone pancreatitis and 10 were cholecystitis; 1 patient developed cholangitis.

The crux of the study’s findings came when the investigators looked at the association between recurrent events and cholecystectomy timing. They found no recurrent biliary events among those who received cholecystectomy while hospitalized or within the first 30 days after discharge. Of the 26 events, 3 (12%) occurred in those whose cholecystectomies came 30-60 days after discharge. The remaining 23 events (88%) were seen in those receiving a cholecystectomy more than 60 days after discharge, or not at all.

Guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and the American College of Gastroenterology all recommend early cholecystectomy after mild acute gallstone pancreatitis, said Dr. Dalapathi.

However, two separate systematic reviews including a total of 22 studies and over 3,000 patients showed that about half (48% and 51%) of patients admitted with mild acute biliary pancreatitis received a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within 14 days of the hospitalization.

Further, he said, previous work had shown recurrent biliary event rates approaching 20% for patients whose biliary pancreatitis bout was not followed by cholecystectomy, a figure in line with the rate seen in the present study.

“Cholecystectomy should be performed during index hospitalization or as soon as possible within 30 days of mild biliary pancreatitis to minimize risk of recurrent biliary events,” said Dr. Dalapathi.

The authors reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ullah M. et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 24.

SAN DIEGO – Waiting to perform cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis was associated with an increased risk of recurrent biliary events in a recent study. In a retrospective study of 234 patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis, almost 90% of recurrent biliary events occurred in patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy within 60 days of hospital discharge. The overall rate of recurrence was 19%, and over half of patients (59%) did not receive a cholecystectomy during their index hospitalization.

Dmitrii Kotin/Thinkstock.com

Additionally, none of the recurrent biliary events occurred in those patients who did receive a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within the first 30 days after discharge. “It really is the case that, ‘if you snooze, you lose,’ ” said Vijay Dalapathi, MD, presenting the findings during an oral presentation at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

Dr. Dalapathi and colleagues had observed that cholecystectomy during an index hospitalization for mild biliary pancreatitis was a far from universal practice, despite guidelines recommending early cholecystectomy.

To delve further into practice patterns, Dr. Dalapathi, first author Mohammed Ullah, MD, and their coauthors at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) conducted a single-site retrospective study of patients who were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis over a 5-year period ending December 2017. Dr. Dalapathi and Dr. Ullah are both second-year gastroenterology fellows.

The study had twin primary outcome measures: cholecystectomy rates performed during an index hospitalization for gallstone pancreatitis and recurrent biliary events after hospitalization. Adult patients were included if they had a diagnosis of acute gallstone pancreatitis, with or without recurrent cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, or acute cholecystitis. Pediatric patients and those with prior cholecystectomy were excluded.

A total of 234 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 58.3 years, and patients were mostly female (57.3%) and white (91.5%). Mean body mass index was 29.1 kg/m². A total of 175 patients (74.8%) had endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Out of the entire cohort of patients, 138 (59%) did not have a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization. Among the patients who did not receive a cholecystectomy, 33 (24%) were deemed unsuitable candidates for the procedure, either because they were critically ill or because they were poor candidates for surgery for other reasons. No reason was provided for the nonperformance of cholecystectomy for an additional 28 patients (20%).

The remaining 75 patients (54%) were deferred to outpatient management. Looking at this subgroup of patients, Dr. Dalapathi and his coinvestigators tracked the amount of time that passed before cholecystectomy.

The researchers found that 19 patients (25%) had not had a cholecystectomy within the study period. A total of 21 patients (28%) had the procedure more than 60 days from hospitalization, and another 23 (31%) had the procedure between 30 and 60 days after hospitalization. Just 12 patients (16%) of this subgroup had their cholecystectomy within 30 days of hospitalization.

Among patients who were discharged without a cholecystectomy, Dr. Dalapathi and his coauthors found 26 recurrent biliary events (19%): 15 were gallstone pancreatitis and 10 were cholecystitis; 1 patient developed cholangitis.

The crux of the study’s findings came when the investigators looked at the association between recurrent events and cholecystectomy timing. They found no recurrent biliary events among those who received cholecystectomy while hospitalized or within the first 30 days after discharge. Of the 26 events, 3 (12%) occurred in those whose cholecystectomies came 30-60 days after discharge. The remaining 23 events (88%) were seen in those receiving a cholecystectomy more than 60 days after discharge, or not at all.

Guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association, the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and the American College of Gastroenterology all recommend early cholecystectomy after mild acute gallstone pancreatitis, said Dr. Dalapathi.

However, two separate systematic reviews including a total of 22 studies and over 3,000 patients showed that about half (48% and 51%) of patients admitted with mild acute biliary pancreatitis received a cholecystectomy during the index hospitalization or within 14 days of the hospitalization.

Further, he said, previous work had shown recurrent biliary event rates approaching 20% for patients whose biliary pancreatitis bout was not followed by cholecystectomy, a figure in line with the rate seen in the present study.

“Cholecystectomy should be performed during index hospitalization or as soon as possible within 30 days of mild biliary pancreatitis to minimize risk of recurrent biliary events,” said Dr. Dalapathi.

The authors reported no outside sources of funding and no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ullah M. et al. DDW 2019, Abstract 24.