Post–Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Prophylaxis: Does the Choice of Crystalloid Fluid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

1Citations
Citations of this article
3Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: – The optimal crystalloid choice for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis is not clear. To evaluate the published literature further, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intravenous (IV) hydration with lactated Ringer (LR) and normal saline (NS) for PEP prevention. Materials and Methods: – A random-effects model was used. The primary outcome was the risk of PEP. Effect estimates were expressed as risk difference (RD) and 95% CI. Results: – Pooling analysis of published RCTs with 594 patients (41.1% males, mean age: 57.6) showed statistically significant risk reduction of PEP in the LR group compared with the NS group [RD: −0.04; 95% CI (−0.08, −0.00), P = 0.03, I2 = 0]. There was no significant risk difference in other adverse events. Conclusion: – At equivalent fluid administration rates, using LR compared with NS showed a significant risk reduction in PEP of 4% with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 25. LR may be the better crystalloid for ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alsaleh, T., Chandan, S., Mohammed, A., Khan, N., Almujarkesh, M. K., Abbasi, A., … Arain, M. (2025). Post–Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Prophylaxis: Does the Choice of Crystalloid Fluid Matter? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Pancreas, 55(2), e157–e161. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000002611

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free