AzTrials
AzTrials

ERCPNCT05219123

Guidewire Management in ERCP

An observational study of ERCP, run by University of Calgary at 1 site in Canada.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

Intra-procedural guidewire management is a parameter whose impact remains incompletely understood in terms of its association with post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
ERCP
What is being tested?
ERCP with no PD cannulation and ERCP with single PD cannulation
How many people
7,461 participants
Where
1 siteCanada
Study dates
20 Dec 2021to 9 Dec 2024
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Patients referred to a hospital-based endoscopy unit for ERCP who have a native major papilla.

Who may be able to join

  • Subject referred for ERCP, regardless of indication;
  • Subject age 18 years or older;
  • Subject able to give informed consent to involvement be included.

Who cannot join

  • Previous sphincterotomy or sphincteroplasty
  • Subject has a standard contraindication to ERCP;
  • Subject or surrogate unable or unwilling to provide informed consent;
  • Subject age < 18 years.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Canada1 site
  • Peter Lougheed Hospital

    Calgary, Alberta

Other trials in Canada

About this study

Official title: Inadvertent Pancreatic Duct Cannulation as an Independent Predictor of Post- Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Intra-procedural guidewire management is a parameter whose impact remains incompletely understood in terms of its association with post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Inadvertent guidewire cannulation of the pancreatic duct (PD) when attempting common bile duct (CBD) cannulation is recognized as a risk factor for PEP. However, to date, no studies have assessed whether a single PD wire cannulation is associated with a higher PEP risk compared to no PD cannulations. Similarly, the relationship between each additional PD cannulation and the incremental magnitude of PEP risk remains unclear. In this study, the investigators will aim to assess whether a single inadvertent PD cannulation (versus no PD cannulation) is associated with an increased risk of PEP (the primary outcome).

Read the detailed description
  1. Background and Rationale While very effective, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely known to have the highest adverse event (AE) profile among all commonly performed endoscopic procedures, with a collective AE rate of >10%. Common AEs include post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, and cardiopulmonary events. PEP is the most common, with estimated rates of 5-10%. It is noteworthy that both the incidence of PEP and its associated mortality are rising. It is of critical priority to patients, practitioners, and health administrators to investigate factors associated with all AEs and unplanned healthcare encounters (UHEs) following ERCP, especially given that most ERCPs are performed on an outpatient basis. The per-admission costs of post-ERCP UHEs are substantial, exceeding $10,000 and $70,000 for pancreatitis and cholangitis, respectively. PEP alone accounts for an estimated $200+ million in annual healthcare spending in the United States. Thus, researchers must prioritize the study of ERCP outcomes, striving to both identify and modify factors leading to AEs and UHEs. Intra-procedural guidewire management is a parameter whose impact remains incompletely understood. Inadvertent guidewire cannulation of the pancreatic duct (PD) when attempting common bile duct (CBD) cannulation is recognized as a risk factor for PEP. However, as inadvertent PD cannulation is highly correlated with difficult CBD cannulation in general, which itself is a risk factor for PEP, these associations are difficult to separate, even in randomized trials. To date, no studies have assessed whether a single PD wire cannulation is associated with a higher PEP risk compared to no PD cannulations. Similarly, the relationship between each additional PD cannulation and the incremental magnitude of PEP risk remains unclear.
  2. Research Question and Objectives In this study, the investigators will aim to assess whether a single inadvertent PD cannulation (versus no PD cannulation) is associated with an increased risk of PEP (the primary outcome).
  3. Methods

Design: Data will be used from the ongoing CReATE project (REB-18-0410). The exposure variable will be a single PD cannulation (versus no PD cannulation) in native papilla cases where the CBD was targeted for any indication. In addition to these variables, other parameters to be assessed include: the presence and timing of pharmacologic PEP prophylaxis, extent and timing of trainee involvement, the number and timing of common bile duct (CBD) cannulation attempts, the depth, timing, trajectory and number of PD cannulation(s), the presence and extent of PD opacification, the size(s) of sphincterotomy and/or sphincteroplasty, intra-procedural pathology, and the composition, caliber and length of any PD or CBD stent(s).

Outcomes: The primary outcome will be PEP, using established definitions. Secondary outcomes (defined a priori) will include PEP severity, overall and specific AEs (bleeding, cholangitis, cardio-pulmonary events), cannulation time and success rate, as well as overall procedure time and success rate.

Sample Size and Power: The investigators estimate 10,700 native papilla cases through the end of 2025. Extrapolating from our existing data (12.3% of eligible patients with a single PD cannulation and 69.4% with no PD cannulation), an estimated 1,316 patients will be exposed and an estimated 7,426 patients be controls. Assuming a two-sided alpha of 0.05, the investigators can demonstrate increases in PEP risk from 5.0% to 7.0% (a relative increase of 40%) with 82.1% power or from 5.0% to 7.5% (a relative increase of 50%) with 93.7% power.

Statistical Analysis: Variables will be compared using Student's t-test for measured variables and chi-squared test for categorical variables. P values < 0.05 will be considered significant. The investigators will use multivariable logistic regression to assess associations between risk factors and having PEP versus not having PEP. Clinically relevant subgroup analyses will also be performed by relevant patient-, endoscopist-, and procedure-related characteristics. Odds ratios per outcome will be reported with 95% CIs.

Conditions
ERCP
Being tested
ERCP with no PD cannulation, ERCP with single PD cannulation

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • ERCP with no PD cannulationOther

    ERCP with no PD cannulation

  • ERCP with single PD cannulationOther

    ERCP with single PD cannulation

Study groups in NCT05219123
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
No PD cannulationPatients with native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary indications with no inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation
Receives: Other: ERCP with no PD cannulation
Single PD cannulationPatients with native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary indications with a single inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation with a guide wire
Receives: Other: ERCP with single PD cannulation

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. post-ERCP pancreatitis

    Defined using a previously published set of a priori criteria by indication (Cotton et al. Gastrointest Endoscopy 2010; 71:446-54).

    Measured: 30 days

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted1 Feb 2022
  2. Study start20 Dec 2021
  3. Primary completion9 Dec 2024
  4. Study completion9 Dec 2024

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrolment
7,461 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT05219123
Sponsor's protocol ID
REB21-0940
Status last verified
Jan 2022
First submitted
20 Jan 2022
Last updated
20 Dec 2024
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of ERCP, run by University of Calgary at 1 site in Canada.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Dec 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

post-ERCP pancreatitis (time frame: 30 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Dec 2024.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in