PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Does Rectal Indomethacin Eliminate the Need for Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement in Patients Undergoing High-Risk ERCP? Post hoc Efficacy and Cost-Benefit Analyses Using Prospective Clinical Trial Data 
OBJECTIVES
A recent large-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) demonstrated that rectal indomethacin administration is effective in addition to pancreatic stent placement (PSP) for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. We performed a post hoc analysis of this RCT to explore whether rectal indomethacin can replace PSP in the prevention of PEP and to estimate the potential cost savings of such an approach.
METHODS
We retrospectively classified RCT subjects into four prevention groups: (1) no prophylaxis, (2) PSP alone, (3) rectal indomethacin alone, and (4) the combination of PSP and indomethacin. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for imbalances in the prevalence of risk factors for PEP between the groups. Based on these adjusted PEP rates, we conducted an economic analysis comparing the costs associated with PEP prevention strategies employing rectal indomethacin alone, PSP alone, or the combination of both.
RESULTS
After adjusting for risk using two different logistic regression models, rectal indomethacin alone appeared to be more effective for preventing PEP than no prophylaxis, PSP alone, and the combination of indomethacin and PSP. Economic analysis revealed that indomethacin alone was a cost-saving strategy in 96% of Monte Carlo trials. A prevention strategy employing rectal indomethacin alone could save approximately $150 million annually in the United States compared with a strategy of PSP alone, and $85 million compared with a strategy of indomethacin and PSP.
CONCLUSIONS
This hypothesis-generating study suggests that prophylactic rectal indomethacin could replace PSP in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP, potentially improving clinical outcomes and reducing healthcare costs. A RCT comparing rectal indomethacin alone vs. indomethacin plus PSP is needed.
doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.442
PMCID: PMC3947644  PMID: 23295278
2.  Performance characteristics of EUS for locoregional evaluation of ampullary lesions 
Gastrointestinal endoscopy  2014;81(2):380-388.
Background
The accuracy of EUS in the locoregional assessment of ampullary lesions is unclear.
Objectives
To compare EUS with ERCP and surgical pathology for the evaluation of intraductal extension and local staging of ampullary lesions.
Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Tertiary-care referral center.
Patients
All patients who underwent EUS primarily for the evaluation of an ampullary lesion between 1998 and 2012.
Intervention
EUS.
Main Outcome Measurements
Comparison of EUS sensitivity/specificity for intraductal and local extension with ERCP and surgical pathology by using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and outcomes of the subgroup referred for endoscopic papillectomy.
Results
We identified 119 patients who underwent EUS for an ampullary lesion, of whom 99 (83%) had an adenoma or adenocarcinoma. Compared with ERCP (n = 90), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS for any intraductal extension was 56%/97% (AUROC = 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.89). However, when using surgical pathology as the reference (n = 102), the sensitivity/specificity of EUS (80%/93%; AUROC = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.97) and ERCP (83%/93%; AUROC = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99) were comparable. The overall accuracy of EUS for local staging was 90%. Of 58 patients referred for endoscopic papillectomy, complete resection was achieved in 53 (91%); in those having intraductal extension by EUS or ERCP, complete resection was achieved in 4 of 5 (80%) and 4 of 7 (57%), respectively.
Limitation
Retrospective design.
Conclusions
EUS and ERCP perform similarly in evaluating intraductal extension of ampullary adenomas. Additionally, EUS is accurate in T-staging ampullary adenocarcinomas. Future prospective studies should evaluate whether EUS can identify characteristics of ampullary lesions that appropriately direct patients to endoscopic or surgical resection. (Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:380-8.)
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.005
PMCID: PMC4322681  PMID: 25293823
3.  Endoscopic papillectomy: risk factors for incomplete resection and recurrence during long-term follow-up 
Gastrointestinal endoscopy  2013;79(2):289-296.
Background
Endoscopic papillectomy is increasingly used as an alternative to surgery for ampullary adenomas and other noninvasive ampullary lesions.
Objective
To measure short-term safety and efficacy of endoscopic papillectomy, define patient and lesion characteristics associated with incomplete endoscopic resection, and measure adenoma recurrence rates during long-term follow-up.
Design
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting
Tertiary-care academic medical center.
Patients
All patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary lesions between July 1995 and June 2012.
Intervention
Endoscopic papillectomy.
Main Outcome Measurements
Patient and lesion characteristics associated with incomplete endoscopic resection and ampullary adenoma-free survival analysis.
Results
We identified 182 patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy, 134 (73.6%) having complete resection. Short-term adverse events occurred in 34 (18.7%). Risk factors for incomplete resection were jaundice at presentation (odds ratio [OR] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07–0.69; P = .009), occult adenocarcinoma (OR 0.06, 95% CI, 0.01–0.36; P = .002), and intraductal involvement (OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.11–0.75; P = .011). The en bloc resection technique was strongly associated with a higher rate of complete resection (OR 4.05, 95% CI, 1.71–9.59; P = .001). Among patients with ampullary adenoma who had complete resection (n = 107), 16 patients (15%) developed recurrence up to 65 months after resection.
Limitations
Retrospective analysis.
Conclusion
Jaundice at presentation, occult adenocarcinoma in the resected specimen, and intraductal involvement are associated with a lower rate of complete resection, whereas en bloc papillectomy increases the odds of complete endoscopic resection. Despite complete resection, recurrence was observed up to 5 years after papillectomy, confirming the need for long-term surveillance.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.006
PMCID: PMC4413454  PMID: 24094466
4.  A Randomized Trial of Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis 
The New England Journal of Medicine  2012;366(15):1414-1422.
Background
Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
Methods
In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights.
Results
A total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P = 0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P = 0.03).
Conclusions
Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.)
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1111103
PMCID: PMC3339271  PMID: 22494121

Results 1-4 (4)