Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(07): E986-E988
DOI: 10.1055/a-1399-8891
Editorial

Underutilization of societal guidelines: occasional or widespread?

Richard Kozarek
Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Underutilization of prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent for prevention of post-ERCP PancreatitisEndosc Int Open 2021; 09(07): E979-E985
DOI: 10.1055/a-1460-7776

The current publication by Issak et al, “Prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stents (PPS) for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are underutilized in average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP” [1], reviews 31,050 adults captured by the IBM Explorys database between 2014 and 2019. Patients were categorized by risk factors for PEP, which included female sex, age < 40 years, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, history of acute pancreatitis, or pancreatic sphincterotomy at time of the procedure [2]. Average-risk patients had no risk factors, and patients were stratified for 0 to ≥ 3 risk factors. The database did not allow retrieval of other procedural risk factors for PEP to include multiple cannulation attempts, multiple pancreatic duct injections, pancreatic acinarization with contrast injection, or failure to use guidewire cannulation to selectively access the biliary tree; nor did it define the ERCP experience of the endoscopist or whether a trainee was involved in the procedure. The primary outcome of the study was to define the incidence of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) or pancreatic stent use in an attempt to decrease PEP. Secondary outcomes were prophylaxis for and incidence of PEP contingent upon number of risk factors. Not surprising was that as the number of risk factors increased, so too did PEP. What perhaps was surprising in this study was that only one-third of all patients undergoing ERCP received PEP prophylaxis. This included 82.4 % receiving rectal indomethacin and 12.4 % who had placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS).



Publication History

Article published online:
17 June 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Issak A, Elangovan A, Ferguson RD. et al. Underutilization of prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent for prevention of post-ERCP in average- and high-risk patients. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E979-E985
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 425-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Elmunzer BJ. et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - updated June 2014. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 799-815
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 32-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Yokoe M, Takada T, Mayumi T. et al. Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2015; 22: 405-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA. et al. A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1414-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 He X, Zheng W, Ding Y. et al. Rectal indomethacin is protective against pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018; 2018: 9784841
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Avila P, Holmes I, Kouanda A. et al. Practice patterns of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis techniques in the United States: a survey of advanced endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 568-73.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Yaghoobi M, Alzahrani MA, McNabb-Baltar J. et al. Rectal indomethacin prevents moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis and death and should be used before the procedure: a meta-analysis of aggregate subgroup data. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2018; 1: 67-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Phillip V, Pukitis A, Epstein A. et al. Pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E860-E868
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E. et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 143-149.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 3-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R. et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81-89
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Valori R, Cortas G, de Lange T. et al. Performance measures for endoscopy services: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2019; 7: 21-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beg S, Ragunath K, Wyman A. et al. Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS). Gut 2017; 66: 1886-1899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moodley J, Lopez R, Carey W. Compliance with practice guidelines and risk of a first esophageal variceal hemorrhage in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 703-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC. et al. Physician Non-adherence to Colonoscopy Interval Guidelines in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 938-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Djinbachian R, Dubé AJ, Durand M. et al. Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 673-683
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jain A, Shafer L, Rothenmund H. et al. Suboptimal adherence in clinical practice to guidelines recommendation to screen for Lynch syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 3489-3501
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Iskandar H, Yan Y, Elwing J. et al. Predictors of poor adherence of US gastroenterologists with colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 971-978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lin OS, Gluck M, Nguyen M. et al. Screening patterns in patients with a family history of colorectal cancer often do not adhere to national guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58: 1841-1848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Marques de Sá I, Pereira AD, Sharma P. et al. Systematic review of the published guidelines on Barrett's esophagus: should we stress the consensus or the differences?. Dis Esophagus 2020; DOI: 10.1093/dote/doaa115.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Qumseya B, Sultan S. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 335-359.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Wani S, Williams JL, Komanduri S. et al. Time trends in adherence to surveillance intervals and biopsy protocol among patients with Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 770-2.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Holmberg D, Ness-Jensen E, Mattsson F. et al. Adherence to clinical guidelines for Barrett's esophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 2019; 54: 945-952
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Antony A, Pohanka C, Keogh S. et al. Adherence to quality indicators in endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus and correlation to dysplasia detection rates. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2018; 42: 591-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Alexandersson B, Hamad Y, Andreasson A. et al. High-definition chromoendoscopy superior to high-definition white-light endoscopy in surveillance of inflammatory bowel diseases in a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2101-2107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kim KO, Chiorean MV. Advanced neoplasia detection using chromoendoscopy and white light colonoscopy for surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Intest Res 2020; 18: 438-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Clarke WT, Feuerstein JD. Colorectal cancer surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: Practice guidelines and recent developments. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25: 4148-4157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Gasenko E, Leja M, Polaka I. et al. How do international gastric cancer prevention guidelines influence clinical practice globally?. Eur J Cancer Prev 2020; 29: 400-407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Rondonotti E, Spada C, Pennazio M. et al. Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations of endoscopists performing small bowel capsule endoscopy in Italy. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 818-823
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L. et al. Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1116-1127
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar