ERCPNCT05219123
Guidewire Management in ERCP
An observational study of ERCP, run by University of Calgary at 1 site in Canada.
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.
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
- 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.
- 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).
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| No PD cannulation | Patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary indications with no inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation Receives: Other: ERCP with no PD cannulation | |
| Single PD cannulation | Patients 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.
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.
- First posted1 Feb 2022
- Study start20 Dec 2021
- Primary completion9 Dec 2024
- Study completion9 Dec 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for ERCPStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of CalgaryThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Calgary
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- McGill University, University of Ottawa, Queen's University, Halton Health (Oakville), Island Health, Victoria, BC
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Nauzer Forbes, MD MSc, Principal investigator, University of Calgary
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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Dec 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Inadvertent Pancreatic Duct Cannulation as an Independent Predictor of Post- Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05219123
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- REB21-0940
- Conditions
- ERCP
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 7,461 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of CalgaryUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- McGill University, University of Ottawa, Queen's University, Halton Health (Oakville), Island Health, Victoria, BC
- Study start
- 20 Dec 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Dec 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 9 Dec 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 1 Feb 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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).
Detailed description
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| No PD cannulation | – | Other: ERCP with no PD cannulationPatients with native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary indications with no inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation |
| Single PD cannulation | – | Other: ERCP with single PD cannulationPatients with native papilla undergoing ERCP for biliary indications with a single inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation with a guide wire |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients referred to a hospital-based endoscopy unit for ERCP who have a native major papilla.
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Subject referred for ERCP, regardless of indication;
- Subject age 18 years or older;
- Subject able to give informed consent to involvement be included.
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| ERCP with no PD cannulationERCP with no PD cannulation | Other | No PD cannulation |
| ERCP with single PD cannulationERCP with single PD cannulation | Other | Single PD cannulation |
Primary outcome
post-ERCP pancreatitis
Time frame: 30 days
Defined using a previously published set of a priori criteria by indication (Cotton et al. Gastrointest Endoscopy 2010; 71:446-54).
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Dec 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for ERCP
RecruitingPhase 1
Metabolic Impact of Pancreatic Duct Decompression
Chronic Pancreatitis
Recruiting
Randomized Trial of Next Generation Fluoroscopy System vs. Conventional Fluoroscopy System in Endoscopy
Radiation Exposure
RecruitingPhase 3
Comparative Effectiveness Between Indomethacin and Pancreatic Stenting in the Prevention of Post ERCP Pancreatitis
Post ERCP Pancreatitis
Not yet recruiting
Cold Water Papillary Irrigation Plus Rectal NSAIDs vs Rectal NSAIDs Alone for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (COLD)
Post ERCP Pancreatitis, Acute Pancreatitis (AP)
Not yet recruiting
Supraglottic Oxygenation Via Oral Transtracheal Catheter for Reducing the Incidence of Hypoxemia During ERCP Under Sedation
Choledocholithiasis With Cholecystitis With Obstruction, Obstructive Jaundice
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nauzer Forbes, MD MSc principal investigator
University of Calgary
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
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.