Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis (APEC): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

IntroductionEarly breast cancer detection and advancements in treatment options have resulted in an increase of breast cancer survivors. An increasing number of women are living with the long-term effects of breast cancer treatment, making the quality of survivorship an increasingly important goal. Breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL) is one of the most underestimated complications of breast cancer treatment with a reported incidence of 20%. A microsurgical technique called lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) might be a promising treatment modality for patients with BCRL. The main objective is to assess whether LVA is more effective than the current standard therapy (conservative treatment) in terms of improvement in quality of life and weather it is cost-effective.Methods and analysisA multicentre, randomised controlled trial, carried out in two academic and two community hospitals in the Netherlands. The study population includes 120 women over the age of 18 who have undergone treatment for breast cancer including axillary treatment (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection) and/or axillary radiotherapy, presenting with an early stage lymphoedema of the arm, viable lymphatic vessels and received at least 3 months conservative treatment. Sixty participants will undergo the LVA operation and the other sixty will continue their regular conservative treatment, both with a follow-up of 24 months. The primary outcome is the health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are societal costs, quality adjusted life years, cost-effectiveness ratio, discontinuation rate of conservative treatment and excess limb volume.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Maastricht University Medical Center (METC) on 19 December 2018 (NL67059.068.18). The results of this study will be disseminated in presentations at academic conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals and other news media.Trial registration numberNCT02790021; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Can topical epinephrine application to the papilla prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Results from a double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial

BMJ Open Gastroenterology ◽

10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000562 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

pp. e000562

Author(s):

Adriana Fabiola Romano-Munive ◽

J Jesus García-Correa ◽

Luis F García-Contreras ◽

José Ramírez-García ◽

Luis Uscanga ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Randomised Clinical Trial ◽

Sterile Water ◽

Endoscopic Retrograde ◽

Double Blind ◽

Registration Number ◽

Baseline Characteristics ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Rectal Indomethacin

Background and study aimsPost-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP.Patients and methodsThis multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine.ResultsOf the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009).ConclusionSpraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP.Trial registration numberThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112).

Download Full-text