Skip to content

Lactated Ringers With or Without Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) - Induced Pancreatitis Using Aggressive Lactated Ringer's Infusion and/or Rectal Indomethacin

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02641561
Acronym
IND+LRPEP
Enrollment
192
Registered
2015-12-29
Start date
2014-10-31
Completion date
2016-06-30
Last updated
2018-02-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Post-ERCP Acute Pancreatitis

Keywords

Pancreatitis, ERCP, Indomethacin, Lactated ringer's

Brief summary

Post-ERCP pancreatitis is a well-known and sometimes life-threatening complication of ERCP. Both LR and rectal indomethacin have shown benefit in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Despite this, no study to date has evaluated both of these measures for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. It is our hope to evaluate the combination of these two modalities for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with either modality alone.

Detailed description

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly used diagnostic and therapeutic intervention used in Gastroenterology. At Cooper University Hospital (CUH), we perform approximately 700 ERCPs per year. A known complication of ERCP is post-ERCP pancreatitis. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis has been cited at anywhere from 2.6-3.5% of cases. Also, severe acute pancreatitis has been cited at rates of 0.32-0.4% and death 0.11%. Recent literature has cited the use of several modalities useful in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Among the modalities evaluated non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS), specifically rectal indomethacin, have demonstrated benefit in preventing post-ERCP. In particular Elmunzer et al demonstrated a benefit in those with sphincter of oddi dysfunction (SOD) and those deemed high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Other medication such at octreotoide and corticosteroid have shown mixed results. Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated the use of lactated ringer's solution (LR) in lieu of normal saline (NS) in patient's with acute pancreatitis. Due to this thought process a recent study evaluated the use of LR in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. The results of this study showed that no patients who received aggressive LR hydration developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. As rectal indomethacin and LR infusion appear to have the most definitive evidence for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, it is our hope to evaluate the combination of these two therapies for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. This is a double blinded, randomized prospective cohort study involving 4 treatment groups undergoing ERCP. All treatment arms shall receive consent, pre-procedural risk stratification, demographic data and pre-procedural liker pain scale. All subjects shall receive a study subject number and undergo randomization. All subjects also will receive post-procedural likert pain scale assessment, day 1 and 30 questioning. Treatment arms shall be separated into whether subjects are high risk or not defined in. Time 0 (Visit 1): Subjects undergo standard pre-procedural evaluation by nursing, anesthesia and consent for procedure/anesthesia. The subject shall then be evaluated for study participation and subsequently consented if they desire to be part of the study. They may also undergo informed consent prior to the day of their procedure during their normal office visit. All subjects must have Liver function tests (LFTs), amylase and lipase levels drawn prior to their ERCP test. Subjects will be excluded from study participation if they have acute pancreatitis defined as; The diagnosis of AP is most often established by the presence of 2 of the 3 following criteria: (i) abdominal pain consistent with the disease (ii) serum amylase and / or lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal, and / or (iii) characteristic findings from abdominal imaging The day of their procedure, nursing shall then obtain intravenous peripheral access (standard for ERCP). Initial demographic data and risk factor data shall be obtained. Subjects shall then be randomized to one of the four study arms and given a study number randomly generated: Pending which treatment arm the patient is enrolled into the subject shall then receive the above listed therapies and undergo their procedure. Post-procedure the interventions performed during the ERCP shall be recorded and the patient will go through the standard recovery process. Post-procedure after recovery from anesthesia, the patients shall then be evaluated for the presence of pain after ERCP testing on the standard likert pain scale. If the subject's pain has substantially increased from baseline, subjects shall then be admitted to the hospital and LFTs, a lipase and amylase level shall be drawn and abdominal imaging ordered if needed by the admitting physician (all the standard of care). Time 1 Days (Visit 2 via phone): Subjects shall be called 24 hours from ERCP to assess; 1. Presence/absence of pain 2. If pain, the severity 3. Performance of amylase and lipase 4. Whether admission, urgent care or emergency department visit did occur Time 1-30 Days The investigator will await the subjects laboratory values and if \> 3 times the upper limit of normal contact the subject via phone. Time 30 Days (Visit 3 via phone): Subjects shall be contacted via phone 30 days from ERCP to assess; 1. Presence/absence of pain 2. If pain, the severity 3. Whether admission, urgent care or Emergency Department (ED) visit did occur to a healthcare facility 4. Study summary To detect a difference of 0.24 vs 0.05 a minimum of 48 per group would be needed (using p=0.05). Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize demographic variables such as age, gender, race, length of stay, as well diagnosis and disease characteristics such as reasons for ERCP, disease intervention, pain,and outcome variables. Data tables will be generated for those variables with means, standard deviation (SD), medians, interquartile range (IQR), and confidence interval (CI). The Chi-Square test will be used to determine the main effect of treatment on ERCP induced pancreatitis. Nonparametric tests will be used to analyze categorical data while normally distributed data will be analyzed using ANOVA to look for treatment effect on other variables of interest. Binary and Multinomial Logistic Regression will be used to examine predictors of outcome within treatments and across treatments by building interactions into the model (e.g. reasons for ERCP, intervention type). Data analysis will be performed using Systat version 13 and SPSS version 22. A p\<0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

Interventions

DRUGIndomethacin

Indomethacin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) which is commonly used to reduce inflammation caused by gout, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. It acts by blocking the cyclo-oxygenase 1 and 2 (COX) receptors. It has also been implicated to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

Lactated ringer's solution (LR), is an intravenous fluid (IVF) used commonly during endoscopic procedures and operative procedures. It's composition is similar to that of humans including sodium, chloride, potassium, calcium and lactate. Studies have implicated the use of this fluid in pancreatitis treatment and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

DRUGNormal Saline

standard IVF would include 0.9% normal saline (NS) solution used during all endoscopic procedures. 0.9% NS includes equal parts sodium and chloride.

DRUGPlacebo

Placebo would be a suppository 50 mg x 2

Sponsors

The Cooper Health System
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
QUADRUPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

1 Subjects who are undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) * Age \> 18 years * Non-pregnant * Non-prisoners * Subjects who can sign informed consent * Serum Creatinine \< 1.2 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL) * Subjects without renal failure (acute or chronic) * Subjects without congestive heart failure (ejection fraction \< 40%) * Subjects without cirrhosis of the liver * Subjects without allergy to aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) * Subjects not on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs NSAIDS prior to enrollment

Exclusion criteria

* Subjects who are not undergoing ERCP * Age \< 18 years * Pregnancy * Prisoners * Subjects lacking the capacity to consent for themselves * Serum Creatinine \> 1.2 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL) * Subjects with renal failure (acute and chronic) * Subjects with congestive heart failure (ejection fraction \< 40%) * Subjects with cirrhosis of the liver * Subjects with allergy to aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) * Subjects with gastrointestinal hemorrhage * Subjects on chronic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs NSAIDS * Subjects with acute pancreatitis the day of their procedure (CITE 1-3)(APPENDIX 1)

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal30 days after ERCPamylase or lipase
The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis30 days after ERCPImaging may include Computer Tomography

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture30 days after ERCPpositive blood culture
The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test30 days after ERCPcreatinine \> 1.5 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL)
The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)30 days after ERCPINR \> 1.5
The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst30 days after ERCPImaging may include Computer Tomography
The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess30 days after ERCPImaging may include Computer Tomography
The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)30 days after ERCPbilateral opacities on chest imaging not explained by other lung pathology, respiratory failure not explained by heart failure or volume, and overload and a pulmonary arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio under 300, PaO2/FiO2 ratio is the partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen
The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report30 days after ERCP
The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting30 days after ERCP
The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting30 days after ERCP
The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days30 days after ERCP
The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting30 days after ERCP
The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation30 days after ERCPImaging may include Computer Tomography
The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)30 days after ERCPHeart rate \> 90 beats per minutes

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
A (NS+Placebo)
Normal Saline (intravenous during procedure) + Placebo (100mg suppository per rectum prior to procedure ) Normal Saline: standard IVF would include 0.9% normal saline (NS) solution used during all endoscopic procedures. 0.9% NS includes equal parts sodium and chloride. Placebo: Placebo would be a suppository 50 mg x 2
48
B (NS+IND)
Normal Saline (intravenous during procedure) + Indomethacin (100mg suppository per rectum prior to procedure ) Indomethacin: Indomethacin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) which is commonly used to reduce inflammation caused by gout, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. It acts by blocking the cyclo-oxygenase 1 and 2 (COX) receptors. It has also been implicated to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis Normal Saline: standard IVF would include 0.9% normal saline (NS) solution used during all endoscopic procedures. 0.9% NS includes equal parts sodium and chloride.
48
C (LR+Placebo)
Lactated ringer's solution (1 Liter, intravenous prior to procedure) + Placebo (100mg suppository per rectum prior to procedure) Lactated Ringer's Solution: Lactated ringer's solution (LR), is an intravenous fluid (IVF) used commonly during endoscopic procedures and operative procedures. It's composition is similar to that of humans including sodium, chloride, potassium, calcium and lactate. Studies have implicated the use of this fluid in pancreatitis treatment and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis Placebo: Placebo would be a suppository 50 mg x 2
48
D (LR+IND)
Lactated ringer's solution (1 Liter, intravenous prior to procedure) + Indomethacin (100mg suppository per rectum prior to procedure) Indomethacin: Indomethacin is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) which is commonly used to reduce inflammation caused by gout, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. It acts by blocking the cyclo-oxygenase 1 and 2 (COX) receptors. It has also been implicated to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis Lactated Ringer's Solution: Lactated ringer's solution (LR), is an intravenous fluid (IVF) used commonly during endoscopic procedures and operative procedures. It's composition is similar to that of humans including sodium, chloride, potassium, calcium and lactate. Studies have implicated the use of this fluid in pancreatitis treatment and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis
48
Total192

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicA (NS+Placebo)TotalD (LR+IND)C (LR+Placebo)B (NS+IND)
Age, Continuous58 years60 years63 years58 years62 years
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
2 Participants6 Participants1 Participants1 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
3 Participants13 Participants4 Participants3 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
1 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
10 Participants25 Participants3 Participants4 Participants8 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
32 Participants147 Participants40 Participants40 Participants35 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
48 participants192 participants48 participants48 participants48 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
29 Participants120 Participants23 Participants35 Participants33 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
19 Participants72 Participants25 Participants13 Participants15 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 482 / 482 / 481 / 48
other
Total, other adverse events
2 / 481 / 481 / 481 / 48
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 480 / 480 / 480 / 48

Outcome results

Primary

The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal

amylase or lipase

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal10 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal6 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal9 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Either Elevated Amylase or Lipase 3 x Upper Limit of Normal3 Participants
Primary

The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis

Imaging may include Computer Tomography

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis1 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Pancreatitis After ERCP as Assessed by Worsening Abdominal Pain Plus Imaging Suggestive of Acute Pancreatitis1 Participants
Secondary

The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
A (NS+Placebo)The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days2.3 daysStandard Deviation 3.5
B (NS+IND)The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days2.2 daysStandard Deviation 4.1
C (LR+Placebo)The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days1.9 daysStandard Deviation 3.4
D (LR+IND)The Length of Stay (LOS) of Participants After ERCP if Medical Care is Sought as Assessed in Days4.3 daysStandard Deviation 8.4
Secondary

The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants Who Undergo Surgery After ERCP, as Assessed by Surgical Operative Report0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting6 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting2 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting2 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants Who Were Readmitted After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting1 Participants
p-value: 0.04Fisher Exact
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)

bilateral opacities on chest imaging not explained by other lung pathology, respiratory failure not explained by heart failure or volume, and overload and a pulmonary arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio under 300, PaO2/FiO2 ratio is the partial pressure arterial oxygen and fraction of inspired oxygen

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)1 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) After ERCP as Assessed by ARDSnet Criterion (Below)0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting1 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting2 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting2 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Mortality After ERCP as Assessed by Medical Record Reporting1 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test

creatinine \> 1.5 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL)

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test1 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated Creatinine Blood Test0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)

INR \> 1.5

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Multiple Organ Failure (MOF) After ERCP as Assessed by Elevated International Normalized Ratio (INR)0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess

Imaging may include Computer Tomography

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Abscess After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pancreatic Abscess0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst

Imaging may include Computer Tomography

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Pancreatic Pseudocyst After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Pseudocyst1 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation

Imaging may include Computer Tomography

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Perforation After ERCP as Assessed by Abdominal Imaging Suggestive of Perforation0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting6 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting2 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting2 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Post-procedural Medical Care (ED Visit, Urgent Care, Hospitalization) as Assessed by Medical Record and Patients Self-reporting1 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture

positive blood culture

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Sepsis After ERCP as Assessed by Infectious Source Defined by Positive Microbiology Culture0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

white blood cell (WBC) count \< 4000 cells/mm³ (4 x 109 cells/L)

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

Heart rate \> 90 beats per minutes

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)10 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)6 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)9 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)3 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

Respiratory rate \> 20 breaths per minute

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)10 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)6 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)9 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)3 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

PaCO2 \< 4.3 kilopascal (kPa) (32 mmHg)

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)0 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

Temperature \< 36°C(96.8°F) or \> 38°C(100.4°F)

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)10 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)6 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)9 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)3 Participants
Secondary

The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)

\> 10% immature neutrophils (band forms).

Time frame: 30 days after ERCP

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
A (NS+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)10 Participants
B (NS+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)6 Participants
C (LR+Placebo)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)9 Participants
D (LR+IND)The Number of Participants With Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) After ERCP as Assessed by the SIRS Criterion (Below)3 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 11, 2026