Rectal Non-steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs With or Without Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stent for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial
Rectal Non-steroid Anti-inflammatory Drugs With or Without Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stent for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Multicenter, Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial
Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication following post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and is associated with occasional mortality, extended hospital stays, and increased healthcare expenses. Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stent (PDS) placement were demonstrated to be effective strategyies to reduce PEP incidences, particlularly in high-risk patients for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).
Rectal NSAIDs were easy-to-use and safe, while PDS placement were technically complex and carried higher risks of adverse events. A previous network meta-analysis suggested rectal NSAIDs in combination with PDS placement did not differ from rectal NSAIDs alone in PEP prevention. To invesigate if rectal NSAIDs alone could obivate the need of PDS placement, a recent trial from Elmunzer et al. conducted a randomized trial to investigate if rectal NSAIDs alone was non-inferior to the combination of NSAIDs with PDS in high-risk patients. The trial found that the PEP incidence rate in combination group was significantly lower than that in NSAIDs alone group. However, post-hoc analysis of the study suggested that the combination strategy conferred significant benefits only in high-risk patients with pancreatic duct (PD) wire passage, but not in those with other risk factors. Therefore, we hypothesized that rectal NSAIDs alone may obivate the need of PDS in high-risk patients without PD wire passages. Here, we conducted a multicenter, randomized and non-inferiority trial to investigate whether rectal NSAIDs alone is non-inferior to NSAIDs plus PDS placement in high-risk patients without PD wire passages.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Beijing, Beijing Municipality 100000, China
astaring@163.com86-13810105934
Chongqing, Chongqing Municipality 400010, China
Xiamen, Fujian 361000, China
Harbin, Heilongjiang 150000, China
Kaifeng, Henan 475000, China
Wuhan, Hubei 430000, China
Changsha, Hunan 410000, China
Jinan, Shandong 250000, China
Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality 201823, China
ningbo.bo@163.com+8613996476336
Zrc.700502@163.com+8613720892152
wangliguo8314000@sina.com86-13654553324
zhaolei181220@163.com86-18745143401
493109907@qq.com+8615191903630
2013tj0575@just.edu.cn86-13307171656
leizhao1987@outlook.com86-13469438509
wangjundoctor@aliyun.com86-13669252896
yanglinpan@hotmail.com862984771536
dolphinj228@hotmail.com86-13969179611
mklaolong@163.com86-13791112618
xiamingxing1982@126.com13906524284
zhangxiaofeng@hospital.westlake.edu.cn86-13758250208
ckj_zyyy@zju.edu.cn86-18989487755