Comparative Effectiveness Between Indomethacin and Pancreatic Stenting in the Prevention of Post ERCP Pancreatitis

NCT ID: NCT03713879

Last Updated: 2025-02-12

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

RECRUITING

Clinical Phase

PHASE3

Total Enrollment

1734 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2019-03-21

Study Completion Date

2026-12-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) occurs in 4 to 5% of patients and is associated with significant morbidities and occasional mortalities. The use of rectall administered indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent (PDS) placement have independently been proven to reduce PEP. The comparative effectiveness of the two methods has however not been studied. It is argued that in the context of indomethacin, the placement of a PDS is unnecessary. Advocates for PDS insertion however believe that mechanical decompression of the pancreatic duct is critical in the prevention of pancreatitis. The investigators propose a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the use of rectal indomethacin to PDS insertion in high risk patients in the prevention of PEP.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Background of research

Pancreatitis is the most common complication after Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It occurs in approximately 5% of patients. The risk can approach 20 to 30% in those with known pre- and intra-procedural risk factors. Three in 100 patients with post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) consequently die. The placement of pancreatic duct stent and the use of rectal administered indomethacin have both been independently shown to reduce PEP. The placement of a pancreatic duct stent has been for a long time considered the gold standard in the prophylaxis against PEP. In a meta-analysis of 8 RCTs that compared the use of pancreatic duct stents to no treatment, pancreatic duct stenting in high risk patients reduces incidence of PEP by approximately 5 fold. In a landmark study by Elmunzer et al., rectal administered indomethacin was shown to reduce PEP (52 of 307 patients,16.9% to 27 of 295 patients, 9.2%, P=0.005). In the trial, \>80% received pancreatic duct stents in addition to rectal indomethacin. Overall there have been 7 RCTs on the use of rectal indomethacin all showing benefits with its use, 3 with PDS and 4 without. In the literature, there has been no direct comparison between the use of rectal indomethacin alone and insertion of PDS. In a secondary analysis of the trial by Elmunzer et al., PEP following the use of rectal indomethacin alone was less compared with the placement of PDS. In a meta-analysis by Akbar et al. pooling 29 studies (22 PDS and 7 indomethacin), the use of rectal indomethacin alone was associated with fewer PEP when compared to insertion of PDS on an indirect comparison using network metaanalysis (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.26-0.87). The more favorable results with rectal indomethacin alone raised the question if PDS insertion is necessary. Furthermore, in another secondary analysis, patients after failed PDS insertion had a 34.7% rate of pancreatitis. In contrary, the rate of pancreatitis was 16.4% in those after successful PDS and 12.1% after no attempt at PDS insertion. The SVI (stent versus indomethacin) trial (NCT024762279) by the US cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE) group is an ongoing non-inferiority trial that compares indomethacin alone to the combination of indomethacin and PDS in 1430 high risk patients with the primary outcome of pancreatitis. The trial tests the hypothesis that PDS is no longer necessary in the context of rectal indomethacin.

The rationale for the trial has been based on the secondary analysis of the Elmunzer trial and the network analysis aforementioned.

The investigators argue that the relative merits of rectal indomethacin and PDS placement have not been established. There may have been substantial difference in the baseline risks between the trials using either rectal indomethacin and PDS placement alone. The small number of RCTs over the use of rectal indomethacin may have overestimated its beneficial effect especially among patients at lower risk of PEP. A direct comparison in the form of a RCT to compare effectiveness of both treatment modalities is required. The insertion of PDS may continue to be important in patients contraindicated for the use of NSAIDs.

Research plan and methodology The investigators hypothesize that rectal administration of indomethacin is not inferior to placement of a pancreatic duct stent in the prevention of pancreatitis after ERCP in high risk patients. In patients randomised to receive pancreatic duct stents, the investigators sought to determine the success rate with PDS insertion and outcomes following successful or unsuccessful PDS insertion. In addition, the investigators analyse possible factors to PEP in both cohorts of patients on either indomethacin or PDS.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Post ERCP Pancreatitis

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

1. rectal indomethacin 100 mg to be administered before or after ERCP
2. a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire) or
3. a PD stent plus rectal indomethacin 100 mg before or after ERCP

In patients randomized to receive PD stenting, the number of attemtps is limited to 5.
Primary Study Purpose

PREVENTION

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

indomethacin

rectal indomethacin 100 mg to be administered before or after ERCP

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Indomethacin

Intervention Type DRUG

rectally administered indomethacin before or after ERCP

pancreatic stenting

a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire)

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

pancreatic stenting

Intervention Type DEVICE

a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire)

indomethacin plus pancreatic stenting

\[rectal indomethacin 100 mg to be administered before or after ERCP\] plus \[a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire\]

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

pancreatic stenting

Intervention Type DEVICE

a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire)

Indomethacin

Intervention Type DRUG

rectally administered indomethacin before or after ERCP

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

pancreatic stenting

a PD stent to be inserted during ERCP (a 3 to 5 cm 5Fr single pigtail pancreatic duct stent without inner flap is used, the stent is inserted after deep cannulation of pancreatic duct with a .025" or .035" wire)

Intervention Type DEVICE

Indomethacin

rectally administered indomethacin before or after ERCP

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

indocid

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

presence of one of the following risk factors for Post ERCP Pancreatitis

1. sphincter of Oddi dysfunction
2. history of PEP, pancreatic instrumentation or sphincterotomy, precut sphincterotomy,
3. difficult cannulation defined by \>5 cannulation attempts
4. the use of double wire technique in bile duct access
5. at least 2 of the followings including i) female age\<50 ii) 3 pancreatograms iii) acinarization (contrast injection to tail fo pancreas). iv) normal bilirubin; v)guidewire to the tail of pancreas or secondary branches.

Exclusion Criteria

* patients intended for pancreatic stenting e.g. those with pancreatic duct strictures, ampullectomy,
* without informed consents from patient or next of kin
* age \<18
* pregnant or lactating women
* patients with altered anatomy except except Billroth I and II gastrectomy
* contraindications to the use of NSAIDs such as those with active gastrointestinal bleeding, renal failure (serum creatinine \> 140)
* known NSAID allergy
* incipient heart failure.
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

99 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Xijing Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Changhai Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Tianjin Union Medical Center

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Zhejiang University

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Chinese University of Hong Kong

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

James Yun-wong Lau, MD

Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

James LAU, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Chinese University of Hong Kong

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Endoscopy centre

Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Site Status RECRUITING

Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital,Endoscopy centre

Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China

Site Status RECRUITING

Endoscopy centre

Shanghai, Shanghai Municipality, China

Site Status NOT_YET_RECRUITING

Endoscopy centre

Tianjin, Tianjin Municipality, China

Site Status RECRUITING

Endoscopy centre

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Site Status RECRUITING

Endoscopy Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital

Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Site Status RECRUITING

2. Chulalongkorn University and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital

Bangkok, , Thailand

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

China Hong Kong Thailand

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

James LAU, MD

Role: CONTACT

RAYMOND TANG, MD

Role: CONTACT

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Yang Lin Pan, MD

Role: primary

Bing HU, MD

Role: primary

Yu Bai, MD

Role: primary

Wen Li, MD

Role: primary

Yun Sheng Qing, MD

Role: primary

James Y LAU, Prof

Role: primary

+85235051411

Supakarn Chaithongrat, MD

Role: primary

Parit Mekaroonkamol, MD

Role: backup

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1781-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x. Epub 2007 May 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17509029 (View on PubMed)

Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, Szary NM, Puli SR, Othman MO, Pais WP, Antillon MR, Roy PK. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):275-82. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 21295641 (View on PubMed)

Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA, Chak A, Mosler P, Higgins PD, Hayward RA, Romagnuolo J, Elta GH, Sherman S, Waljee AK, Repaka A, Atkinson MR, Cote GA, Kwon RS, McHenry L, Piraka CR, Wamsteker EJ, Watkins JL, Korsnes SJ, Schmidt SE, Turner SM, Nicholson S, Fogel EL; U.S. Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE). A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1414-22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111103.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22494121 (View on PubMed)

Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C, Evans S, O'Suilleabhain C. Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology. 2003 Jun;124(7):1786-91. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5085(03)00384-6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12806612 (View on PubMed)

Khoshbaten M, Khorram H, Madad L, Ehsani Ardakani MJ, Farzin H, Zali MR. Role of diclofenac in reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Jul;23(7 Pt 2):e11-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05096.x. Epub 2007 Aug 7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17683501 (View on PubMed)

Montano Loza A, Rodriguez Lomeli X, Garcia Correa JE, Davalos Cobian C, Cervantes Guevara G, Medrano Munoz F, Fuentes Orozco C, Gonzalez Ojeda A. [Effect of the administration of rectal indomethacin on amylase serum levels after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and its impact on the development of secondary pancreatitis episodes]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2007 Jun;99(6):330-6. doi: 10.4321/s1130-01082007000600005. Spanish.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17883296 (View on PubMed)

Otsuka T, Kawazoe S, Nakashita S, Kamachi S, Oeda S, Sumida C, Akiyama T, Ario K, Fujimoto M, Tabuchi M, Noda T. Low-dose rectal diclofenac for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol. 2012 Aug;47(8):912-7. doi: 10.1007/s00535-012-0554-7. Epub 2012 Feb 18.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22350703 (View on PubMed)

Katsinelos P, Fasoulas K, Paroutoglou G, Chatzimavroudis G, Beltsis A, Terzoudis S, Katsinelos T, Dimou E, Zavos C, Kaltsa A, Kountouras J. Combination of diclofenac plus somatostatin in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2012 Jan;44(1):53-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291440. Epub 2011 Dec 23.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22198776 (View on PubMed)

Sotoudehmanesh R, Khatibian M, Kolahdoozan S, Ainechi S, Malboosbaf R, Nouraie M. Indomethacin may reduce the incidence and severity of acute pancreatitis after ERCP. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 May;102(5):978-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01165.x. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17355281 (View on PubMed)

Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PD, Saini SD, Scheiman JM, Parker RA, Chak A, Romagnuolo J, Mosler P, Hayward RA, Elta GH, Korsnes SJ, Schmidt SE, Sherman S, Lehman GA, Fogel EL; United States Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy. Does rectal indomethacin eliminate the need for prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP? Post hoc efficacy and cost-benefit analyses using prospective clinical trial data. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Mar;108(3):410-5. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.442. Epub 2013 Jan 8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23295278 (View on PubMed)

Akbar A, Abu Dayyeh BK, Baron TH, Wang Z, Altayar O, Murad MH. Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are superior to pancreatic duct stents in preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jul;11(7):778-83. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.12.043. Epub 2013 Jan 30.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 23376320 (View on PubMed)

Choksi NS, Fogel EL, Cote GA, Romagnuolo J, Elta GH, Scheiman JM, Chak A, Mosler P, Higgins PD, Korsnes SJ, Schmidt SE, Sherman S, Lehman GA, Elmunzer BJ; United States Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy. The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):150-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.033.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25527053 (View on PubMed)

Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991 May-Jun;37(3):383-93. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(91)70740-2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 2070995 (View on PubMed)

Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibanes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19638912 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

StentvsNSAID

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.