4 patients (3.3%) of those who received diclofenac sodium developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, compared to 7 patients (5.8%) in the group not received the drug. The risk of pancreatits was lower in the NSAID group than in the controlled group but statistically insignificant. No deaths or NSAID-related complications were noted. Conclusion: Prophylactic NSAIDs were ineffective in preventing PEP. Widespread prophylactic administration of these agents may not significantly reduce thei ncidence of PEP. Given current scepticism regarding the efficacy of any prophylactic medication for ERCP, additional multicentre studies are needed for confirmation

prior to widespread adoption of this strategy. Key Word(s): 1. GSK1120212 clinical trial NSAIDs; 2. ERCP; 3. pancreatitis; 4. prophylactic; Presenting Author: KEN ITO Additional Authors: YOSHINORI IGARASHI, TAKAHIKO MIMURA, SEIICHI HARA, KENSUKE TAKUMA, YUI KISHIMOTO, NAOKI OKANO Corresponding Author: KEN ITO Affiliations: Toho

University Omori Medical Center Objective: The efficacy of electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) is well documented for the treatment of chronic pancreatitis lithiasis when endoscopic lithotripsy failed. As an alternative method, we attempt extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) on an outpatient basis in our institution. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of the EHL as a second attempt and that of ESWL Ixazomib order on an outpatient basis as a third attempt for treatment of pancreatic duct stones. Cetuximab molecular weight Methods: The indication

of EHL and ESWL on an outpatient basis was considered for the failed cases of the combination treatment of endoscopic lithotomy and ESWL during admission (combination treatment), failed cases of endoscopic pancreatic stenting due to stone impaction or severe main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture. We retrospectively evaluated the 98 patients with symptomatic pancreatic duct stones that was treated at our institution between May 2005 and December 2012. We analyzed the outcomes of the MPD stone clearance in the cases treated by EHL or ESWL on an outpatient basis. Results: The successful results were obtained in 67 of 98 patients (74.5%) by combination treatment, 7 of 14 patients (7.1%) by EHL, and 6 of 6 patients (6.1%) by ESWL on an outpatient basis, respectively. Sixteen patients were out of indication, 12 cases had radiolucent stones, and 4 cases failed in selective pancreatic duct cannulation with radiolucent stones. A total of 87.7% of the patients (80 of 98 patients) resulted in MPD stone clearance. The multivariate analysis showed that GW negotiation across the stone was a statistically significant factor for the stone clearance (odds ratio, 14.1; 95% CI, 0.46 to 43.2; P 0.0003). Conclusion: EHL and ESWL on an outpatient basis, compared with combination treatment of endoscopic lithotomy and ESWL during admission, increased the composite rate of MPD stones clearance. Key Word(s): 1. EHL; 2.