Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prevention of Pancreatitis After Papillary Balloon Dilatation by Nasobiliary Drainage: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was associated with a higher rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).

Aim

The purpose of this study was to determine whether placement of an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter can also prevent PEP after EPBD.

Methods

A total of 93 patients, who with proven common bile duct (CBD) stones, received EPBD were enrolled this trial. They were randomly divided into ENBD group (n = 45) and no-ENBD group (n = 48) according whether undergone an ENBD procedure after EPBD. Their demographics, laboratory, procedural data were collected, and pancreaticobiliary complications were followed.

Results

The number of patients with serum amylase levels above the normal upper limit (>180 U/L) did not differ between groups. However, compared with ENBD group, more patients in No-ENBD group had levels greater than three times the normal limit (>540 U/L) (11/48 vs 3/45, P = 0.0285), and more patients developed to PEP (7/48 vs 0/45, P = 0.0250). During follow-up, the numbers of patients undergone cholecystectomy, cholangitis and recurrence of CBD stones were similar. There was also no significant difference in the cumulative rate of recurrent pancreaticobiliary complications between the two groups (P = 0.452).

Conclusions

EPBD followed by insertion of an ENBD catheter can prevent PEP, and routine ENBD catheter placement is recommended after an EPBD procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Staritz M, Ewe K, Meyer zum Büschenfelde KH. Endoscopic papillary dilatation: an alternative to papillotomy [in German with English abstract]? Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1982;107:895–897.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gupta N, Poreddy V, Al-Kawas F. Endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2008;10:169–176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1455–1460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Weinberg BM, Shindy W, Lo S. Endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation (sphincteroplasty) versus sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;4:CD004890.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Minami A, Nakatsu T, Uchida N, et al. Papillary dilation vs sphincterotomy in endoscopic removal of bile duct stones. A randomized trial with manometric function. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:2550–2554.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Fockens P, et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopicsphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones. Lancet. 1997;349:1124–1129.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sato H, Kodama T, Takaaki J, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation may preserve sphincter of Oddi function after common bile duct stone management:evaluation from the viewpoint of endoscopic manometry. Gut. 1997;41:541–544.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yasuda I, Tomita E, Enya M, Kato T, Moriwaki H. Can endoscopic papillary balloon dilation really preserve sphincter of Oddi function? Gut. 2001;49:686–691.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Takezawa M, Kida Y, Kida M, Saigenji K. Influence of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy on sphincter of oddi function : a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2004;36:631–637.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kawabe T, Komatsu Y, Tada M, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation in cirrhotic patients: removal of common bile duct stones without sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 1996;28:694–698.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bergman JJ, van Berkel AM, Bruno MJ, et al. A randomized trial of endoscopic balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones in patients with a prior Billroth II gastrectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:19–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin CK, Lai KH, Chan HH, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilatation is a safe method in the management of common bile duct stones. Dig Liver Dis. 2004;36:68–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mathuna PM, White P, Clarke E, Merriman R, Lennon JR, Crowe J. Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:468–474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mac Mathuna P, White P, Clarke E, Lennon J, Crowe J. Endoscopic sphincteroplasty: a novel and safe alternative to papillotomy in the management of bile duct stones. Gut. 1994;35:127–129.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maydeo A, Bhandari S. Balloon sphincteroplasty for removing difficult bile duct stones. Endoscopy. 2007;39:958–961.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Baron TH, Harewood GC. Endoscopic balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter compared to endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones during ERCP: a metaanalysis of randomized, controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:1455–1460.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma BC, Kumar R, Agarwal N, Sarin SK. Endoscopic biliary drainage by nasobiliary drain or by stent placement in patients with acute cholangitis. Endoscopy. 2005;37:439–443.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Park SY, Park CH, Cho SB, et al. The safety and effectiveness of endoscopic biliary decompression byplastic stent placement in acute suppurative cholangitis compared with nasobiliary drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1076–1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kawashima H, Itoh A, Ohno E, Goto H, Hirooka Y. Is nasobiliary drainage unnecessary for drainage of acute suppurative cholangitis? Our experience. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:118–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Prat F, Fritsch J, Choury AD, Meduri B, Pelletier G, Buffet C. Endoscopic sphincteroclasy: a useful therapeutic tool for biliary endoscopy in Billroth II gastrectomy patients. Endoscopy. 1997;29:79–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Disario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:1291–1299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sherman S, Ruffolo TA, Hawes RH, et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: a prospective series with emphasis on the increased risk associated with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and nondilated ducts. Gastroenterology. 1991;101:1068–1075.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Smithline A, Silverman W, Rogers D, et al. Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39:652–657.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee DW, Chan AC, Lam YH, et al. Biliary decompression by nasobiliary catheter or biliary stent in acute suppurative cholangitis: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:361–365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharma BC, Kumar R, Agarwal N, Sarin SK. Endoscopic biliary drainage by nasobiliary drain or by stent placement in patients with acute cholangitis. Endoscopy. 2005;37:439–443.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sato D, Shibahara T, Miyazaki K, et al. Efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage for the prevention of pancreatitis after papillary balloon dilatation: a pilot study. Pancreas. 2005;31:93–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:275–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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;102:978–983.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Changshu Affiliated Hospital of Suzhou Universit, Changshu, China

    Xiao-dan Xu, Jian-jun Dai, Jian-qing Qian & Wei-jun Wang

Authors
  1. Xiao-dan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jian-jun Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jian-qing Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wei-jun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiao-dan Xu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Xd., Dai, Jj., Qian, Jq. et al. Prevention of Pancreatitis After Papillary Balloon Dilatation by Nasobiliary Drainage: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Dig Dis Sci 60, 1087–1091 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3400-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3400-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation