Search

Purpose: To determine the diagnostic performance of parenchymal MRI features differentiating CP from controls. Methods: This prospective study performed abdominal MRI scans at seven institutions, using 1.5 T Siemens and GE scanners, in 50 control and 51 definite CP participants, from February 2019 to May 2021. MRI parameters included the T1-weighted signal intensity ratio of the pancreas (T1 score), arterial-to-venous enhancement ratio (AVR) during venous and delayed phases, pancreas volume, and diameter. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of these parameters individually and two semi-quantitative MRI scores derived using logistic regression: SQ-MRI Model A (T1 score, AVR venous, and tail diameter) and Model B (T1 score, AVR venous, and volume). Results: When compared to controls, CP participants showed a significantly lower mean T1 score (1.11 vs. 1.29), AVR venous (0.86 vs. 1.45), AVR delayed (1.07 vs. 1.57), volume (54.97 vs. 80.00 ml), and diameter of the head (2.05 vs. 2.39 cm), body (2.25 vs. 2.58 cm), and tail (1.98 vs. 2.51 cm) (p < 0.05 for all). AUCs for these individual MR parameters ranged from 0.66 to 0.79, while AUCs for the SQ-MRI scores were 0.82 and 0.81 for Model A (T1 score, AVR venous, and tail diameter) and Model B (T1 score, AVR venous, and volume), respectively. After propensity-matching adjustments for covariates, AUCs for Models A and B of the SQ-MRI scores increased to 0.92 and 0.93, respectively. Conclusion: Semi-quantitative parameters of the pancreatic parenchyma, including T1 score, enhancement ratio, pancreas volume, diameter and multi-parametric models combining these parameters are helpful in diagnosis of CP. Longitudinal analyses including more extensive population are warranted to develop new diagnostic criteria for CP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Endoscopic management of large main pancreatic ductal (MPD) stones often require treatment with lithotripsy. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) has been the mainstay therapy, and single-operator pancreatoscopy with intraductal (intracorporeal) lithotripsy (SOPIL) is an emerging technique. However, no comparative studies between these techniques exist. We therefore aimed to compare ESWL to SOPIL for the treatment of large MPD stones. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who were treated with ESWL or SOPIL from September 2013 to September 2019 at a single tertiary center. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with technical success and efficient stone clearance (≤ 2 procedures to clear stones). Results: There were 240 patients who were treated with ESWL and 18 treated with SOPIL. The overall technical success rate of stone clearance was 224/258 (86.8%), which was similar between the ESWL and SOPIL groups (86.7% vs 88.9%, p = 1.000). A SOPIL approach required fewer total procedures (1.6 ± 0.6 vs 3.1 ± 1.5, p < 0.001) and less aggregate procedure time (101.6 ± 68.2 vs 191.8 ± 111.6 min, p = 0.001). Adverse event rates were similar between the groups (6.3% vs 5.6%, p = 1.000). The use of SOPIL was independently associated with greater efficiency compared to ESWL (OR 5.241 [1.348–20.369], p = 0.017). Stone size > 10 mm was associated with less efficient stone clearance (OR 0.484 [0.256–0.912], p = 0.025). Conclusion: Both ESWL and SOPIL are safe and effective endoscopic adjunct modalities for treating large pancreatic duct stones. SOPIL is an emerging alternative to ESWL that is potentially more efficient for lithotripsy and MPD stone clearance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A single-procedure session combining EUS and ERCP (EUS/ERCP) for tissue diagnosis and biliary decompression for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is technically feasible. While EUS/ERCP may offer expedience and convenience over an approach of separate procedures sessions, the technical success and risk for complications of a combined approach is unclear. Aims: Compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS/ERCP versus separate session approaches for PDAC. Methods: Study patients (2010–2015) were identified within our ERCP database. Patients were analyzed in three groups based on approach: Group A: Single-session EUS-FNA and ERCP (EUS/ERCP), Group B: EUS-FNA followed by separate, subsequent ERCP (EUS then ERCP), and Group C: ERCP with/without separate EUS (ERCP ± EUS). Rates of technical success, number of procedures, complications, and time to initiation of PDAC therapies were compared between groups. Results: Two hundred patients met study criteria. EUS/ERCP approach (Group A) had a longer index procedure duration (median 66 min, p = 0.023). No differences were observed between Group A versus sequential procedure approaches (Groups B and C) for complications (p = 0.109) and success of EUS-FNA (p = 0.711) and ERCP (p = 0.109). Subgroup analysis (> 2 months of follow-up, not referred to hospice, n = 126) was performed. No differences were observed for stent failure (p = 0.307) or need for subsequent procedures (p = 0.220). EUS/ERCP (Group A) was associated with a shorter time to initiation of PDAC therapies (mean, 25.2 vs 42.7 days, p = 0.046). Conclusions: EUS/ERCP approach has comparable rates of success and complications compared to separate, sequential approaches. An EUS/ERCP approach equates to shorter time interval to initiation of PDAC therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims Complete stone removal from the main pancreatic duct might not be achieved in all patients with obstructive chronic calcific pancreatitis. We report our results for endoscopic dorsal pancreatic duct (DPD) bypass of obstructing stones in the ventral pancreatic duct (VPD). Patients and methods 16 patients with obstructive chronic calcific pancreatitis were treated with a DPD bypass. Clinical success was defined as significant pain relief and no hospital admissions for pain management during the ongoing treatment period. Results Among 16 patients meeting entry criteria, 10 (62.5 %) had a history of unsuccessful endoscopic therapy, and 8 had failed extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). Clinical success was achieved in 12 patients (75 %). Among these responders, 10 patients (83.3 %) had markedly improved or complete pain relief after the first stent placement, which persisted throughout the follow-up period; 11 patients (91.7 %) were able to discontinue their daily analgesics. Conclusions In selected patients with obstructive chronic calcific pancreatitis, the DPD bypass may be considered as a rescue endoscopic therapy, potentially obviating the need for surgery when standard endoscopic methods and ESWL fail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatitis is the most common and serious complication of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP. The aim of this study is to examine the potential patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in a prospective multicenter study. METHODS: A 160-variable database was prospectively collected by a defined protocol on patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP at 15 centers in the Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Group and participating in a randomized controlled study evaluating whether prophylactic corticosteroids will reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Data were collected prior to the procedure, at the time of procedure, and 24–72 h after discharge. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was diagnosed and its severity graded according to consensus criteria. RESULTS: Of the 1,115 patients enrolled, diagnostic ERCP with or without sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM) was performed in 536 (48.1%) and therapeutic ERCP in 579 (51.9%). Suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) was the indication for the ERCP in 378 patients (33.9%). Pancreatitis developed in 168 patients (15.1%) and was graded mild in 112 (10%), moderate in 45 (4%), and severe in 11(1%). There was no difference in the incidence of pancreatitis or the frequency of investigated potential pancreatitis risk factors between the corticosteroid and placebo groups. By univariate analysis, the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly higher in 19 of 30 investigated variables. In the multivariate risk model, significant risk factors with adjusted odds ratios (OR) were: minor papilla sphincterotomy (OR: 3.8), suspected SOD (OR: 2.6), history of post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR: 2.0), age <60 yr (OR: 1.6), ≥2 contrast injections into the pancreatic duct (OR: 1.5), and trainee involvement (OR: 1.5). Female gender, history of recurrent idiopathic pancreatitis, pancreas divisum, SOM, difficult cannulation, and major papilla sphincterotomy (either biliary or pancreatic) were not multivariate risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the role of patient factors (age, SOD, prior history of post-ERCP pancreatitis) and technical factors (number of PD injections, minor papilla sphincterotomy, and operator experience) as the determining high-risk predictors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]