4.4 Article

Continuous Infusion of Fluid Hydration Over 24 Hours Does Not Prevent Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 67, Issue 8, Pages 4122-4130

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-021-07256-z

Keywords

Pancreatitis; Hydration; ERCP; Post-ERCP pancreatitis; Prevention

Funding

  1. Siriraj Research Development Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to evaluate the impact of continuous high-volume fluid infusion over 24 hours on the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis, but found that it did not provide optimal hydration for prevention of PEP, with no significant differences in outcomes between the high-volume and control groups, even in high-risk patients.
Background Aggressive intravenous fluid hydration, by administering 3500 mL of lactated Ringer's solution (LRS) in 9 h with a peri-procedural bolus, reduces post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) incidence. A concern of this strategy is adverse events related to volume overload; however, the impact of fluid hydration over an extended period without a bolus on PEP is unknown. Aim To assess the effect of continuous infusion of high-volume fluid at a constant rate over 24 h on PEP incidence and severity. Methods Two-hundred patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 3600 mL of LRS in 24 h starting 2 h before the ERCP (high-volume group) or maintenance fluid hydration calculated by the Holliday-Segar method (control group). Results The mean age of the patients was 50.6 +/- 11.6 years. The predominant indications were choledocholithiasis (48%) and malignancies (32%). Patient demographics and PEP risk factors were similar in both groups. Patients in the high-volume group received significantly more fluid than the control group (3600 vs. 2413 ml, P < 0.001). PEP incidence was not different between the high-volume and the control group (14% vs. 15%; relative risk 0.93: 95% CI 0.48-1.83, P = 0.84). There were no differences in moderate to severe PEP (3% vs. 4%; relative risk 0.75: 95% CI, 0.17-3.27, P = 1.00). Subgroup analysis did not show a benefit in high-risk patients. Only one patient in the control group developed peripheral edema. Conclusions An infusion of high-volume hydration over 24 h is not sufficient to provide optimal hydration for PEP prevention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available