TY - JOUR
T1 - Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP
T2 - a randomised non-inferiority trial
AU - SVI Study Group
AU - Elmunzer, B. Joseph
AU - Foster, Lydia D.
AU - Serrano, Jose
AU - Coté, Gregory A.
AU - Edmundowicz, Steven A.
AU - Wani, Sachin
AU - Shah, Raj
AU - Bang, Ji Young
AU - Varadarajulu, Shyam
AU - Singh, Vikesh K.
AU - Khashab, Mouen
AU - Kwon, Richard S.
AU - Scheiman, James M.
AU - Willingham, Field F.
AU - Keilin, Steven A.
AU - Papachristou, Georgios I.
AU - Chak, Amitabh
AU - Slivka, Adam
AU - Mullady, Daniel
AU - Kushnir, Vladimir
AU - Buxbaum, James
AU - Keswani, Rajesh
AU - Gardner, Timothy B.
AU - Forbes, Nauzer
AU - Rastogi, Amit
AU - Ross, Andrew
AU - Law, Joanna
AU - Yachimski, Patrick
AU - Chen, Yen I.
AU - Barkun, Alan
AU - Smith, Zachary L.
AU - Petersen, Bret
AU - Wang, Andrew Y.
AU - Saltzman, John R.
AU - Spitzer, Rebecca L.
AU - Ordiah, Collins
AU - Spino, Cathie
AU - Durkalski-Mauldin, Valerie
AU - Elmunzer, B. Joseph
AU - Foster, Lydia D.
AU - Edmundowicz, Steven A.
AU - Singh, Vikesh K.
AU - Kwon, Richard S.
AU - Scheiman, James M.
AU - Willingham, Field F.
AU - Keilin, Steven A.
AU - Gardner, Timothy B.
AU - Smith, Zachary
AU - Wang, Andrew Y.
AU - Saltzman, John R.
AU - Spitzer, Rebecca L.
AU - Higgins, Peter D.R.
AU - Forster, Erin
AU - Moran, Robert A.
AU - Brauer, Brian
AU - Wamsteker, Erik J.
AU - Cai, Qiang
AU - Qayed, Emad
AU - Groce, Royce
AU - Krishna, Somashekar G.
AU - Faulx, Ashley
AU - Glessing, Brooke
AU - Rabinovitz, Mordechai
AU - Lang, Gabriel
AU - Aadam, Aziz
AU - Komanduri, Srinadh
AU - Adler, Jefferey
AU - Gordon, Stuart
AU - Mohamed, Rachid
AU - Olyaee, Mojtaba
AU - Wood-Williams, April
AU - Depue Brewbaker, Emily K.
AU - Thornhill, Andre
AU - Gould, Mariana
AU - Clasen, Kristen
AU - Olsen, Jama
AU - Simon, Violette C.
AU - Kamal, Ayesha
AU - Volk, Sarah L.
AU - Merchant, Ambreen A.
AU - Lahooti, Ali
AU - Furey, Nancy
AU - Anderson, Gulsum
AU - Hollander, Thomas
AU - Vazquez, Alejandro
AU - Li, Thomas Y.
AU - Hadley, Steven M.
AU - Chau, Millie
AU - Mendoza, Robinson
AU - Tangwongchai, Tida
AU - Koza, Casey L.
AU - Geraci, Olivia
AU - Nunez, Lizbeth
AU - Waters, Alexander M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2024/2/3
Y1 - 2024/2/3
N2 - Background: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. Methods: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. Findings: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6–6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. Interpretation: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. Funding: US National Institutes of Health.
AB - Background: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. Methods: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. Findings: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6–6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. Interpretation: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. Funding: US National Institutes of Health.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183679654&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02356-5
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02356-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 38219767
AN - SCOPUS:85183679654
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 403
SP - 450
EP - 458
JO - The Lancet
JF - The Lancet
IS - 10425
ER -