Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient’s risk profile. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP. Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:A robust model of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk is not currently available. We aimed to develop a machine learning-based tool for PEP risk prediction to aid in clinical decision making related to periprocedural prophylaxis selection and postprocedural monitoring. METHODS:Feature selection, model training, and validation were performed using patient-level data from 12 randomized controlled trials. A gradient-boosted machine (GBM) model was trained to estimate PEP risk, and the performance of the resulting model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with 5-fold cross-validation. A web-based clinical decision-making tool was created, and a prospective pilot study was performed using data from ERCPs performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital over a 1-month period. RESULTS:A total of 7389 patients were included in the GBM with an 8.6% rate of PEP. The model was trained on 20 PEP risk factors and 5 prophylactic interventions (rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], aggressive hydration, combined rectal NSAIDs and aggressive hydration, pancreatic duct stenting, and combined rectal NSAIDs and pancreatic duct stenting). The resulting GBM model had an AUC of 0.70 (65% specificity, 65% sensitivity, 95% negative predictive value, and 15% positive predictive value). A total of 135 patients were included in the prospective pilot study, resulting in an AUC of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a novel machine learning-based PEP risk estimation tool with high negative predictive value to aid in prophylaxis selection and identify patients at low risk who may not require extended postprocedure monitoring.

Esophageal stricture is one of the serious adverse events following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, optimum preventive techniques are still lacking.

AIM:This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of fibrin glue (FG) in preventing delayed bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).METHODS:From 2011 to 2014, 423 patients undergoing gastric ESDs were studied retrospectively. After excluding 26 patients, 397 were enrolled. The post-ESD wounds were treated with only coagrasper/clips before April 2013. After that, additional FG spray was utilized for wound closure. The post-ESD bleeding rates were compared between the FG group (patients with postoperative use of FG) and the non-FG group (patients without the use of FG).RESULTS:A total of 397 lesions were successfully resected from 397 patients. The FG group significantly had more risk factors predisposing to delayed bleeding, such as advanced age, larger specimen size, more cancerous lesions and longer operation time. There was no significant difference in gender, comorbidity, lesion locations, numbers of coagrasper and hemoclips used between the 2 groups. The total rate of delayed bleeding was 4.53% (18/397). There were 18 cases of delayed bleeding (5.98%) in the non-FG group and none in the FG group (p = 0.03). Univariate analysis showed that FG reduced the risk of delayed bleeding significantly (p = 0.03).CONCLUSION:FG was simple and effective in preventing delayed bleeding after gastric ESDs.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is commonly used for the treatment of early gastric neoplasms. However, there are reports indicating an increase in serious complications, such as perforation and delayed bleeding [1]. Various methods have been introduced to close the large mucosal defect after ESD, such as a simple closure method with metal clips or the "loop and clips" method [2]. Many authors prefer the loop and clips technique for closure of larger post-ESD mucosal defects, but this requires a two-channel endoscope and is technically more difficult. In this report, we describe a newly developed pre-detached loop technique as an easy and safe alternative method.

BACKGROUND:Non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been shown to reduce the incidence of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). There were various trials using different routes and dosages of NSAIDs but meta-analysis revealed inconsistent results.AIMS:The aims of this study were to determine the efficacy of rectal diclofenac in preventing PEP and to evaluate any adverse events.METHODS:This was a randomized, open-label, two-arm, prospective clinical trial. Only patients at high risk of developing PEP were recruited. They received 100 mg rectal diclofenac or no intervention immediately after ERCP. The patients were reviewed 30 days after discharge to evaluate any adverse event.RESULTS:Among 144 recruited patients, 69 (47.9%) received diclofenac and 75 (52.1%) had no intervention. Eleven patients (7.6%) developed PEP, in which seven were from the diclofenac group and four were in the control group. Eight cases of PEP (5.5%) were mild and three cases (2.1%) were moderate. The differences in pancreatitis incidence and severity between both groups were not statistically significant. There were 11 adverse events reported. Clinically significant bleeding happened in four patients (2.8%): one from the diclofenac group and three from the control group. Other events included cholangitis: two patients (2.9%) from the diclofenac group and four (5.3%) from the control group. One patient from the diclofenac group (1.4%) had a perforation which was treated conservatively.CONCLUSIONS:In summary, prophylactic rectal diclofenac did not significantly decrease the incidence of PEP among patients at high risk for developing PEP. However, the administration of diclofenac was fairly safe with few clinical adverse events.