Studies comparing aggressive hydration with lactate Ringer: results

Author (country, year) [ref]PEP (%) (experimental vs. control arm)Severe PEP (%)Hyperamylasemia (%)Isolated pancreatic pain (%)Fluid overloadOthers SAE (serious adverse event)Pancreatic stent (%)
Buxbaum et al. (USA, 2014) [30]0 vs. 170 vs. 2523 vs. 398 vs. 22NoneNA4 vs. 5
Shaygan-Nejad et al. (Iran, 2015) [32]5.3 vs. 22.7
(p = 0.002)		NA22.7 vs. 44
(p = 0.006)		5.3 vs. 37.3
(p = 0.005)		NoneNA9.3 vs. 10.7
Choi et al. (Korea, 2017) [31]4.3 vs. 9.8
(p = 0.016)		0.4 vs. 2.0
(p = 0.040)		6.7 vs. 16.1
(p = 0.001)		NA1 pts in study groupNot difference
(3 pts for arm)		15.3 vs. 13.7
Park et al. (Korea, 2018) [34]3.0 vs. 6.7 vs. 11.6
(ITT anal.*)		None18.9 vs. 23.9 vs. 20.9
(ITT anal.*)		12.1 vs. 17.9 vs. 20.2
(ITT anal.*)		1 vs. 3 vs. 0 pts8 vs. 7 vs. 2 pts22.0 vs. 19.4 vs. 14.7
Masjedizadeh et al. (Iran, 2017) [36]12.9 vs. 25.8 vs. 32.3NANA21 vs. 33.9 vs. 43.5NANANA
Ghaderi et al. (Iran, 2019) [33]5.8 vs. 15.8
(p = 0.013)		NA20.8 vs. 35
(p = 0.014)		7.5 vs. 27.5
(p < 0.005)		NANANA
Guha et al. (India, 2023) [37]0.6 vs. 2.9
(p = 0.118)		0 vs. 600.6 vs. 2.3
(p = 0.211)		22.5 vs. 24.7
(p = 0.7)		NoneBleed 2.2 vs. 1.7 %
Perforation 2.8 vs. 2.9 %		4.2 vs. 2.9
Chang et al. (Thailand, 2022) [35]14 vs. 15
(p = 0.84)		3 vs. 4
(p = 0.118)		39 vs. 42
(p = 0.67)		19 vs. 16
(p = 0.58)		None1 patient for group dead for sepsis2 vs. 5

*: Intention to treat analysis; NA: not available; PEP: post-ERCP acute pancreatitis; pts: patients