De-Feng Li1,2,3, Mei-Feng Yang4, Xin Chang5, Nan-Nan Wang3, Fang-Fang Tan3, Hai-Na Xie3, Xue Fang5, Shu-Ling Wang5, Wei Fan6, Jian-Yao Wang1, Zhi-Chao Yu1, Cheng Wei1, Feng Xiong1, Ting-Ting Liu1, Ming-Han Luo1, Li-Sheng Wang1, Zhao-Shen Li5, Jun Yao1, Yu Bai7. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, The 2nd Clinical Medicine College (Shenzhen People's Hospital) of Jinan University, Shenzhen, 518020, China. 2. Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine Postdoctoral Research Station, Jinan University, Guangzhou, 510632, China. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, China. 4. Department of Hematology, The First Affiliated Hospital of University of South China, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, China. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. 6. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. baiyu1998@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) is commonly performed during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but is an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and duodenal perforation. These are partly ascribed to the electrosurgical current mode used for EST, and currently the optimal current model for EST remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the rate of complications undergoing EST using the Endocut versus the blended current. METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed for relevant published and prospective studies including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare Endocut with blended current modes for EST. Data were collected from inception until 1 July 2018, using post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Three RCTs including a total of 594 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis results showed the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, primarily mild to moderate pancreatitis, was no different between Endocut versus blended current modes [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.52, P = 0.29]. However, the risk of endoscopically bleeding events, primarily mild bleeding, was lower in studies using Endocut versus blended current (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.95, P = 0.03). Notably, none of the patients experienced perforation in these three trials. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was not significantly different when using the Endocut versus blended current during EST. Nevertheless, compared with the blended current, Endocut reduced the incidence of endoscopically evident bleeding; however, the available data were insufficient to assess the perforation risk.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) is commonly performed during therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), but is an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and duodenal perforation. These are partly ascribed to the electrosurgical current mode used for EST, and currently the optimal current model for EST remains controversial. In this study, we aimed to compare the rate of complications undergoing EST using the Endocut versus the blended current. METHODS: A systematic search of databases was performed for relevant published and prospective studies including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to compare Endocut with blended current modes for EST. Data were collected from inception until 1 July 2018, using post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding and perforation as primary outcomes. RESULTS: Three RCTs including a total of 594 patients met the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis results showed the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, primarily mild to moderate pancreatitis, was no different between Endocut versus blended current modes [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-1.52, P = 0.29]. However, the risk of endoscopically bleeding events, primarily mild bleeding, was lower in studies using Endocut versus blended current (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.95, P = 0.03). Notably, none of the patients experienced perforation in these three trials. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis was not significantly different when using the Endocut versus blended current during EST. Nevertheless, compared with the blended current, Endocut reduced the incidence of endoscopically evident bleeding; however, the available data were insufficient to assess the perforation risk.
Authors: Adam Slivka; John J Bosco; Alan N Barkun; Gerard A Isenberg; Cuong Cao Nguyen; Bret T Petersen; William B Silverman; Greta Taitelbaum; Gregory G Ginsberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: P B Cotton; G Lehman; J Vennes; J E Geenen; R C Russell; W C Meyers; C Liguory; N Nickl Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1991 May-Jun Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ian D Norton; Bret T Petersen; Jay Bosco; Doug B Nelson; Peter B Meier; Todd H Baron; Stephen M Lange; Christopher J Gostout; David S Loeb; Michael J Levy; Maurits J Wiersema; Nicole Pochron Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Andrew M Veitch; Franco Radaelli; Raza Alikhan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Diane Eaton; Jo Jerrome; Will Lester; David Nylander; Mo Thoufeeq; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet; James R Wilkinson; Jeanin E van Hooft Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2021-08-06 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Andrew M Veitch; Franco Radaelli; Raza Alikhan; Jean Marc Dumonceau; Diane Eaton; Jo Jerrome; Will Lester; David Nylander; Mo Thoufeeq; Geoffroy Vanbiervliet; James R Wilkinson; Jeanin E Van Hooft Journal: Gut Date: 2021-09 Impact factor: 23.059