BACKGROUND & AIMS: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains the most frequent adverse event after ERCP. Although rectal NSAIDs and aggressive intravenous hydration are guideline-endorsed, the incremental benefit of adding hydration to NSAIDs is uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NSAIDs plus aggressive hydration versus NSAIDs alone for PEP prevention. METHODS: A systematic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed for RCTs comparing NSAIDs plus aggressive hydration versus NSAIDs alone in adults undergoing ERCP. For the primary outcome a random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the PEP pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Supplementary analyses included pooled arm-specific PEP incidence, sensitivity analyses for few trials and sparse events, and trial sequential analysis (TSA). RESULTS: Eight RCTs with a total of 1,903 patients were included. The pooled arm-specific incidence of PEP was 2.8% (95% CI 0.4%-6.7%) with NSAIDs plus aggressive hydration and 7.6% (95% CI 5.2%-10.4%) with NSAIDs alone.. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects analysis suggested a directionally favorable but statistically inconclusive estimate with combination prophylaxis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.40-1.08; I²=18%),whereas the pooled risk difference was -3.8% (95% CI -6.3 to -1.4). . The REML/Hartung-Knapp analysis was also inconclusive (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45-1.18). Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size (RIS) had not been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with NSAIDs alone, the addition of aggressive hydration resulted in a directionally lower but statistically inconclusive relative risk of PEP. Although the pooled risk difference favored combination therapy, the small-sample-robust and trial-sequential analyses remained inconclusive. The available evidence therefore does not establish superiority.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Balducci et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: