4.7 Article

Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 81, Issue 1, Pages 143-U181

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.06.045

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Data regarding the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are primarily from nonrandomized studies. Objective: To determine the incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP from a systematic review of the placebo or no-stent arms of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). Design: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify RCTs evaluating the efficacy of drugs and/or pancreatic stents to prevent PEP. Setting: Systematic review of patients enrolled in RCTs evaluating agents for PEP prophylaxis. Patients: Patients in the placebo or no-stent arms of the RCTs Intervention: ERCP. Main Outcome Measurements: Incidence, severity, and mortality of PEP. Results: There were 108 RCTs with 13,296 patients in the placebo or no-stent arms. Overall, the PEP incidence was 9.7% and the mortality rate was 0.7%. Severity of PEP was reported for 8857 patients: 5.7%, 2.6%, and 0.5% of cases were mild, moderate, and severe, respectively. The incidence of PEP in 2345 high-risk patients was 14.7% and the severity of PEP was mild, moderate, and severe in 8.6%, 3.9%, and 0.8%, respectively, with a 0.2% mortality rate. The incidence of PEP was 13% in North American RCTs compared with 8.4% in European and 9.9% in Asian RCTs. ERCPs conducted before and after 2000 had a PEP incidence of 7.7% and 10%, respectively. Limitations: Difference in PEP risk among patients in the included RCTs. Conclusion: The incidence of PEP and severe PEP is similar in high-risk patients and the overall cohort. Discrepancies in the incidence of PEP across geographic regions require further study.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available