Are). Complication rate working with a duodenoscope was (pancreatitis; embolism) vs (pancreatitis; biliary leak) working with SBE (P , Chisquare),devoid of mortality. The usage of a duodenoscope allowed full sphincterotomy and each plastic and metallic stent placement,whereas the usage of SBE normally required to combine sphincterotomy with extra sphincteroplasty ( mm) and only Fr plastic stent placement was doable as a result of . mm operating channel diameter. Even so,SBE permitted easy access for the papilla within the afferent limb and sphincteroplasty usually allowed direct cholangioscopy making use of SBE. Indications had been bile duct stones (chronic pancreatitis (cholangitis (livertransplantation Conclusion: Therapeutic ERCP achievement rate is higher in sufferers with Billroth II gastrectomy making use of either a conventional duodenoscope or the SBE,with an acceptable and comparable complication price. The option of endoscope could depend on the endoscopists practical experience,postoperative anatomy (gastrojejunostomy and length of afferent limb) and therapeutic indication (metallic stent placement and direct cholangioscopy). Disclosure of Interest: None declaredP POSTERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP) DOES ROUTINE USE OF RECTAL Butein indomethacin Impact OUTCOMES A HIGHVOLUME SINGLECENTRE Practical experience In the UK F. Abid,M. T. Huggett,J. M. PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749492 Hutchinson,S. M. Everett,M. H. Davies,R. E. England Gastroenterology,Hepatology,Radiology,St James University Hospital,Leeds,Leeds,Uk Get in touch with E mail Address: faisal.abidnhs.net Introduction: PostERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can be a frequent but potentially lifethreatening complication of ERCP with an incidence of as much as in unselected sufferers in massive international series. Quite a few prospective trials have shown that administration of rectal indomethacin is advantageous in minimizing the incidence of PEP in highrisk sufferers. We aimed to compare the price and severity of PEP in an unselected group during the pre and postindomethacin era at our hospital,which has among the list of largest ERCP practices within the UK. Aims Procedures: A retrospective evaluation of a prospectivelycollected ERCP database in all adult individuals undergoing ERCP from January to December . In no rectal indomethacin was offered,while in all individuals recieved it. In only highrisk patients recieved indomethacin. Thus,the unselected patient cohorts from (pre group) and (post group) have been compared. PEP was diagnosed and categorised into mild,moderate and severe according to Cottons consensus guidelines. Final results: individuals were included. Of patients inside the pre group, developed pancreatitis, mild, moderate and extreme with deaths. Of patients inside the post group, created PEP; ( mild, moderate and severe with death. There was no difference in the all round incidence of pancreatitis amongst the post and pre groups [OR , p.],however the combined incidence of moderate and extreme PEP was drastically reduced within the post group [OR , p.]. There was no distinction in haemorrhage rates in post vs pre group [OR , p.]. Conclusion: We observed that in our cohort of individuals the unselected use of rectal indomethacin did not substantially lower the incidence of PEP,on the other hand there was a considerable reduction in moderate to severe PEP. This study thus suggests a advantageous impact of your routine use of rectal indomethacin in unselected individuals,consistent with existing European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) suggestions. References . Kochar B,Akshintala VS,et al. Incidence,severity,and mortality of postERCP pancreatit.