Browsing by Author "Siersema, Peter D."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Preventive Measures and Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis
    (Springer, 2024) Sperna Weiland, Christina J.; Akshintala, Venkata S.; Singh, Anmol; Buxbaum, James; Choi, Jun-Ho; Elmunzer, Badih J.; Fogel, Evan S.; Lai, Jian-Han; Levenick, John M.; Gardner, Timothy B.; Lua, Guan W.; Luo, Hui; de Jong, Mike; Mok, Shaffer R. S.; Phillip, Veit; Singh, Vikesh; Siersema, Peter D.; Drenth, Joost P. H.; van Geenen, Erwin J. M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP, with limited studies comparing combined prophylactic measures and their efficacy relative to individual patient risk profiles. This study aims to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the contribution of patient and ERCP-related risk factors to PEP development and to identify the best prophylaxis strategies according to the patient's risk profile. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases until November 2022 for randomized controlled PEP prophylaxis trials. We invited authors to share individual patient data, including PEP risk profile and prophylaxes used. PEP incidence rates for different prophylaxis were calculated. Efficacy was compared using multilevel logistic regression and expressed as relative risk (RR). Subgroup analysis evaluated the role of patient and ERCP-related risk factors in developing PEP. Results: Data from 11 studies, including 6430 patients, were analyzed. After adjusting for risk factors, rectal NSAIDs (RR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88) and peri-procedural high-volume intravenous fluid (IVF) (RR 0.40, 95%CI 0.21-0.79) were effective in reducing PEP incidence, while no benefit was noted with pancreatic duct (PD) stents (RR 1.25, 95%CI 0.91-1.73). In patients receiving rectal NSAIDs (n = 2617), difficult cannulation (RR 1.99, 1.45-2.73), contrast injection into the pancreatic duct (PD) (RR2.37, 1.68-3.32), and prior history of PEP (RR 1.90, 1.06-3.41) were associated with increased PEP risk. Conclusion: This IPDMA confirms that rectal NSAIDs and peri-procedural IVF are effective PEP prophylactic strategies. Further studies focusing on combination therapy or the development of personalized PEP risk calculators are needed to improve prophylactic strategies.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Right-Sided Location Not Associated With Missed Colorectal Adenomas in an Individual-Level Reanalysis of Tandem Colonoscopy Studies
    (Elsevier, 2019) Zimmermann-Fraedrich, Katharina; Sehner, Susanne; Rex, Douglas K.; Kaltenbach, Tonya; Soetniko, Roy; Wallace, Michael; Leung, Wai K.; Guo, Chuanguo; Gralnek, Ian M.; Brand, Eelco C.; Groth, Stefan; Schachschal, Guido; Ikematsu, Hiroaki; Siersema, Peter D.; Rösch, Thomas; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Interval cancers occur more frequently in the right colon. One reason could be that right-sided adenomas are frequently missed in colonoscopy examinations. We reanalyzed data from tandem colonoscopies to assess adenoma miss rates in relation to location and other factors. Methods We pooled data from 8 randomized tandem trials comprising 2218 patients who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopies (adenomas detected in 49.8% of patients). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression with patients as cluster effects with different independent parameters. Factors analyzed included location (left vs right, splenic flexure as cutoff), adenoma size, form, and histologic features. Analyses were controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient sex and age, colonoscopy indication, and bowel cleanliness. Results Right-side location was not an independent risk factor for missed adenomas (odds ratio [OR] compared with the left side, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.17). However, compared with adenomas ≤5 mm, the OR for missing adenomas of 6–9 mm was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44–0.87), and the OR for missing adenomas of ≥10 mm was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33–0.77). Compared with pedunculated adenomas, sessile (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16–2.85) and flat adenomas (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.49–4.10) were more likely to be missed. Histologic features were not significant risk factors for missed adenomas (OR for adenomas with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34–1.37 and OR for sessile serrated adenomas, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47–1.64 compared with low-grade adenomas). Men had a higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy (1.27; 95% CI, 1.21–1.33) than women (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80–0.93). Men were less likely to have missed adenomas than women (OR for missed adenomas in men, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94). Conclusions In an analysis of data from 8 randomized trials, we found that right-side location of an adenoma does not increase its odds for being missed during colonoscopy but that adenoma size and histologic features do increase risk. Further studies are needed to determine why adenomas are more frequently missed during colonoscopies in women than men.