A prospective, double-blind trial of L-hyoscyamine versus glucagon for the inhibition of small intestinal motility during ERCP

• Published in: Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1997-08, Vol.46 (2), p.139-142
• Main Authors: Lahoti, Sandeep, Catalano, Marc F., Geenen, Joseph E., Hogan, Walter J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Atropine - therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - economics; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cross-Over Studies; Digestive system. Abdomen; Double-Blind Method; Duodenum - drug effects; Duodenum - physiology; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal Agents - therapeutic use; Gastrointestinal Motility - drug effects; Glucagon - therapeutic use; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Muscarinic Antagonists - therapeutic use; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Prospective Studies
• ISSN: 0016-5107; 1097-6779
• DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(97)70061-0

Background: Glucagon is often used to inhibit duodenal motility and enhance cannulation during ERCP. Levsin is an antimuscarinic, anticholinergic agent that may be as effective as glucagon. Methods: Three hundred eight patients requiring an antimotility agent during ERCP were randomized in a double-blind prospective study to intravenous Levsin or glucagon. Parameters recorded included difficulty of procedure, predrug and postdrug motility grade, effectiveness of medication, patients requiring “crossover” drug, side effects, and cost per case. Results: One hundred fifty-three patients were randomized to glucagon and 155 to Levsin. The two groups were equally matched with regard to patient and procedure characteristics. Of statistical significance were the following: (1) 12 patients in the Levsin group required crossover compared to 1 patient in the glucagon group, (2) Levsin was slightly less effective in inhibiting motility, but this did not adversely influence procedure difficulty, (3) Levsin was associated with more minor side effects (nausea, vomiting, and pain) at 2 hours after the procedure (Levsin 36 of 143, glucagon 24 of 152, p = 0.045) but there was no difference in pancreatitis (glucagon 6, Levsin 8), (4) Levsin was associated with a significant cost advantage (Levsin $10.45/case, glucagon $29.51/case, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Levsin may provide a reasonable alternative antimotility agent during ERCP. Levsin does not appear to alter the rate of significant postprocedure complications. The cost benefit advantage appears to be substantial.(Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:42)