4.6 Article

Aggressive intravenous hydration with lactated Ringer's solution for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 50, Issue 4, Pages 378-385

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-122386

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korean Pancreatobiliary Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and study aims The present study aimed to determine the type of intravenous hydration that is best suited to reducing the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Patients and methods In a prospective randomized multicenter trial, average-to-high risk patients who underwent first-time ERCP were randomly assigned to three groups (1: 1: 1) who received: aggressive intravenous hydration (3 mL/kg/h during ERCP, a 20-mL/kg bolus and 3 mL/kg/h for 8 hours after ERCP) with either lactated Ringer's solution (LRS) or normal saline solution (NSS), or standard intravenous hydration with LRS (1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 hours after ERCP). The primary end point was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Results 395 patients were enrolled, and 385 completed the protocols. The three groups showed no significant differences in demographic characteristics. There was a significant difference in the intention-to-treat (ITT) PEP rate between the aggressive LRS group (3.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1%-5.9%; 4/132), the aggressive NSS group (6.7 %, 95% CI 2.5%-10.9 %; 9/134) and the standard LRS group (11.6%, 95% CI 6.1%-17.2%; 15/129; P=0.03). In the two-group comparisons, the ITT PEP rate was significantly lower for the aggressive LRS group than for the standard LRS group (relative risk [RR] 0.26, 95 % CI 0.08 0.76; P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the ITT PEP rate between the aggressive NSS group and the standard LRS group (RR 0.57, 95 % CI 0.26 -1.27; P=0.17). Conclusion Aggressive hydration with LRS is the best approach to intravenous hydration for the prevention of PEP in average-to-high risk patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available