Pittayanon, Rapat

Recent guidelines on biliary cannulation are lacking. This guideline is an initiative of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) with the involvement of a panel of experts from Asia, Europe, and America. Relevant clinical questions on four areas (post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] pancreatitis [PEP] prophylaxis, biliary cannulation techniques, sphincterotomy/papillary balloon dilation, and biliary cannulation in special circumstances) were developed and answered after systematic reviews of the literature and using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Successful biliary cannulation and sphincterotomy are cornerstones of ERCP and are indispensable for almost all therapeutic and advanced diagnostic procedures. However, adverse events, particularly PEP, may commonly occur and impair patients' outcomes. A high cannulation rate and a low rate of PEP are quality indicators for ERCP and should be the goal of all endoscopists. With this guideline we aimed to provide clinical practice advice applicable worldwide, regardless of resources and expertise availability. The main recommendations focus on specific aspects of ERCP, including pre‐, intra‐, and postprocedural measures to reduce the risk of PEP, the technique for an initial biliary cannulation attempt, options for cannulation in cases of difficult biliary access, alternatives to ERCP in case of failure (percutaneous‐ and endoscopic ultrasound‐guided), and biliary access in altered anatomy (periampullary diverticulum and postsurgical anatomy) and in the presence of duodenal stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: Prokinetics are recommended for the treatment of functional dyspepsia (FD) but systematic reviews give conflicting results on the efficacy of these agents. We have therefore conducted an updated systematic review to support the 2017 joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guidelines. METHODS: Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, were searched until September 2017 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing either prokinetics and placebo or two types of prokinetics to improve FD symptoms. The primary outcome was absence or improvement of dyspeptic symptoms at the end of treatment. Double-blind eligibility assessment and data extraction was performed. Pooled risk ratios of symptoms persisting or adverse events occurring, and standardized mean difference of quality-of-life (QoL) scores with 95% CI, using a random effects model, were calculated. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: The search identified 1388 citations; 38 studies in 35 papers were included. Of these, 29 trials comparing prokinetics with placebo were found. There was a statistically significant effect of prokinetic treatment in reducing global symptoms of FD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.89; I 2 91%; NNT 7), regardless of FD subtype or ethnicity. When comparing two types of prokinetic, the most commonly used comparator was domperidone. There was no difference in reducing global symptoms (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.07). QoL was not improved with prokinetic treatment. The adverse events with individual prokinetics were not different from placebo, except for cisapride. The GRADE assessment rated the quality of the evidence in each outcome as very low. CONCLUSIONS: From the current evidence, prokinetics may be effective for the treatment in all subtypes of FD, with very low quality of evidence. There was no difference between prokinetics for dyspeptic symptom improvement. High-quality RCTs with large sample sizes of FD patients are needed to verify the efficacy of prokinetics.