BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of wire-guided cannulation (WGC) for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess the overall effect of WGC for PEP compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation by carrying out a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCT). METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, meeting abstracts and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for further relevant studies. Outcome measures were the incidence of PEP. RESULTS: Four RCT, enrolling a total of 1413 patients, were included. The meta-analysis failed to indicate a significant association between the use of WGC and the reduction of PEP (RR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.10-1.17; P = 0.09). Subgroup analysis including trials without cross-over design showed a significant benefit with the use of WGC in reducing PEP (RR 0.20; 95% CI: 0.09-0.40; P < 0.00001) and trials without precut used failed to indicate a significant differences between the two group (RR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.01-11.73; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed only a non-significant reduction in the rate of PEP with the use of WGC. Further well-designed RCT are required to confirm the effect of WGC, especially in patients who were easier to cannulate.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of wire-guided cannulation (WGC) for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is controversial. The aim of the present study was to assess the overall effect of WGC for PEP compared with conventional contrast-assisted cannulation by carrying out a meta-analysis of all available randomized controlled trials (RCT). METHODS: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library and the Science Citation Index, were searched to retrieve relevant trials. In addition, meeting abstracts and the reference lists of retrieved articles were reviewed for further relevant studies. Outcome measures were the incidence of PEP. RESULTS: Four RCT, enrolling a total of 1413 patients, were included. The meta-analysis failed to indicate a significant association between the use of WGC and the reduction of PEP (RR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.10-1.17; P = 0.09). Subgroup analysis including trials without cross-over design showed a significant benefit with the use of WGC in reducing PEP (RR 0.20; 95% CI: 0.09-0.40; P < 0.00001) and trials without precut used failed to indicate a significant differences between the two group (RR 0.38; 95% CI: 0.01-11.73; P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed only a non-significant reduction in the rate of PEP with the use of WGC. Further well-designed RCT are required to confirm the effect of WGC, especially in patients who were easier to cannulate.
Authors: Maher Al Hatlani; Paul Kortan; Gary May; Simon C Ling; Thomas Walters; Yaron Avitzur Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2015 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.485