Published online Feb 6, 2019. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i3.300
Peer-review started: October 31, 2018
First decision: November 15, 2018
Revised: December 18, 2018
Accepted: December 21, 2018
Article in press: December 24, 2018
Published online: February 6, 2019
Processing time: 92 Days and 11.9 Hours
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) represents a complex endoscopic technique, which is almost exclusively used nowdays for therapeutic intent. Although ERCP should be a safe procedure for the vast majority of patients, postprocedural complications may arise, among which post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequently reported.
PEP still remains an important concern with respect to its prophylaxis and management, especially considering the paucity of prospective trials in ERCP regarding this complication.
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of three prophylactic approaches for preventing PEP, using pharmacologic agents with different mechanisms of action (indomethacin in various doses with or without an extra dose of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) for prevention of acute pancreatitis in patients with choledocholithiasis and indication for undergoing ERCP.
The study design was that of a prospective, single-blind randomized trial for comparing and dynamically evaluating the efficacy of the three pharmacological combination therapies.
Both split-dose administration of indomethacin (50 mg pre- and post-ERCP) and combined administration of 600 mg NAC before the procedure with per-rectum administration of 100 mg indomethacin post-ERCP showed similar efficacy in preventing PEP, as compared to the standard, guideline-reccommended regimen (per-rectum administration of 100 mg indomethacin post-ERCP).
The results of this prospective randomized control trial support the potential use of various pharmacologic pathogenic regimens for the prophylaxis of PEP, showing similar efficacy and safety profiles. However, considering other potential prophylactic approaches, using either intravenous nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aggressive intravenous hydration, double-blind prospective randomized controlled trials would offer stronger evidence for establishing prophylactic strategies in PEP.
Considering these findings, further research in the field (eventually, through multicentric studies, enrolling high number of patients and modulating the antioxidant dose) could lead to developing more a efficient prophylactic pharmacological approach, with a satisfactory safety profile and tenable costs.