Pancreatic Duct Stents in the Prophylaxis of Pancreatic Damage after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Analysis of Benefits and Associated Risks

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Methods: The efficacy of pancreatic stenting in the prevention of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was evaluated by a meta-analysis of 6 controlled studies; 12 additional uncontrolled studies were analyzed for rates of associated risk. Results: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) developed in 16.5% of controls, and in 5.1 or 9.6% of the stent group at the per-protocol (PP) or intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. By analyzing only the 4 randomized trials, PEP developed in 24.1% of controls, and in 6.1 or 12.0% of the stented patients at the PP or ITT analyses. Risk was significantly lower in the stent group when compared with controls: OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.24–0.81). The absolute risk reduction is 12.0 (95% CI 3.0–21.0), the number needed to treat 8 (95% CI 5–34), and the publication bias 2. ORs for mild to moderate PEP were reduced in the stent group (OR = 0.537, 95% CI 0.283–1.021), as were those for severe PEP (OR = 0.123, 95% CI 0.021–0.726). Non-pancreatic complications were 4.2%, and included early stent migration (1.4%), perforations (0.4%), bleeding (1.4%), and infections (1.0%). Conclusion: Available trials show benefit for pancreatic stenting in the prophylaxis of PEP, but more randomized studies are needed before endorsing a routine use of this endoscopic procedure.

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Endoscopic management of adenoma of the major duodenal papilla.

Marc F. Catalano, Jeffrey Linder, Amitabh Chak … (2004)

It is well established that adenoma of the major duodenal papilla has a potential for malignant transformation. Standard treatment has been surgical (duodenotomy/local resection, pancreaticoduodenectomy). Endoscopic management is described, but there is no established consensus regarding the approach to papillectomy or the need for surveillance. This study describes endoscopic management and long-term follow-up of papillary tumors by 4 groups of expert pancreaticobiliary endoscopists. Consecutive patients with papillary tumors referred to 4 pancreaticobiliary endoscopy centers for evaluation for endoscopic papillectomy were reviewed. For each patient, an extensive questionnaire was completed, which included 19 preoperative and 15 postoperative data points. A total of 103 patients (53 women, 50 men, age range 24-93) who underwent attempted endoscopic resection were included. Of these, 72 had sporadic adenoma, and the remaining patients had familial adenomatous polyposis, including Gardner's variant. Presenting symptoms were jaundice/cholangitis/pain (n=59), pancreatitis (n=18), and bleeding (n=12). Twenty-six patients were asymptomatic. Endoscopic treatment was successful, long term, in 83 patients (80%) and failed (initial failure or recurrent tumor) in 20 (20%) patients. Success was significantly associated with older age (54.7 [16.6] vs. 46.6 [21.7] years; p=0.08) and smaller lesions (21.1 [8.3] vs. 29.7 [7.2] mm; p<0.0001). Success rate was higher for sporadic lesions compared with genetically determined lesions (63 of 72 [86%] vs. 20 of 31 [67%]; p=0.02). There were 10 initial failures, which was more common for sporadic lesions (7 of 10). The overall success rate for papillectomy was similar in patients who had adjuvant thermal ablation (81%) compared with those who did not (78%). However, recurrence (n=10) was more common in the former group (9 of 10, [90%]; p=0.22). Complications (n=10) included acute pancreatitis (n=5), bleeding (n=2), and late papillary stenosis (n=3). Acute pancreatitis was more common in patients who did not have pancreatic duct stents placed (17% vs. 3.3%). Papillary stenosis was more frequent without short-term pancreatic duct stent placement (15.4% vs. 1.1%), although the difference was not statistically significant, because this complication was infrequent. Endoscopic treatment of papillary adenoma in selected patients appears to be highly successful. The majority can undergo complete resection after ERCP. In expert hands, complications are infrequent and may be avoided by routine placement of a pancreatic duct stent.

0 comments Cited 59 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla.

Nicole L Pochron, Gavin Harewood, C J Gostout (2005)

Tumors that arise in the region of the major duodenal papilla account for 5% of GI neoplasms and 36% of resectable pancreaticoduodenal tumors. There is limited published literature that addresses the safety of endoscopic excision of the papilla. Although there is consensus about prophylactic pancreatic-duct stent placement, there is little supporting prospective data. The aim of this randomized, controlled trial was to compare the rates of postsnare ampullectomy pancreatitis in patients who did/did not receive prophylactic pancreatic-duct stent placement. Consecutive patients who were to undergo en bloc snare ampullectomy were randomized to placement of pancreatic-duct stent after ampullectomy or to no stent placement. In total, 19 patients were enrolled, and 10 received pancreatic stents. Postprocedure pancreatitis occurred in 3 patients in the 24 hours after endoscopy, all cases occurred in the unstented group, 33% vs. 0% (stented group), p = 0.02. Median peak amylase level was 3692 U/L (range 1819-4700 U/L) and median peak lipase level was 11450 U/L (range 5900-17,000 U/L). All 3 patients were hospitalized for a median of 2 days (range 1-6), and all made a complete recovery. Our findings suggest that a protective effect is conferred by pancreatic stent placement in reducing postampullectomy pancreatitis. Future large-scale studies are required to confirm this benefit.

0 comments Cited 54 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials.

Pankaj Singh, Ananya Das, Gerard A. Isenberg … (2004)

Impaired drainage of the pancreatic duct is one of the possible triggers for post-ERCP acute pancreatitis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine whether temporary stent placement across the main pancreatic-duct orifice lowers the frequency of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients at high risk for this complication. Two reviewers systematically identified prospective studies that (1) compared the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients with pancreatic stent placement vs. no stent placement and (2) included patients at high risk of developing this complication. Studies were assessed for methodologic quality and variations in execution and design. Frequency and severity of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis were the primary outcomes evaluated. Five trials involving 481 patients were selected. Of the 481, 55 (11.4%) patients developed pancreatitis after ERCP. Patients in the no stent group had 3-fold higher odds of developing pancreatitis compared with the stent group (15.5% vs. 5.8%; OR 3.2: 95% CI[1.6, 6.4]). Number needed to treat analysis showed that one in every 10 patients (95% CI[6,18]) could be expected to benefit from pancreatic-duct stent placement. Prophylactic temporary stent placement across the main pancreatic-duct orifice reduces the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis in patients at risk for developing this complication.

0 comments Cited 46 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (publisher-id): DIG

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Digestion

Journal ID (doi): 10.1159/issn.0012-2823

Title: Digestion

Publisher: S. Karger AG

ISSN (Print): 0012-2823

ISSN (Electronic): 1421-9867

Publication date Subscription-year: 2007

Publication date (Print): August 2007

Publication date (Electronic): 06 August 2007

Volume: 75

Issue: 2-3

Pages: 156-163

Affiliations

Divisions of ^aGastroenterology, ^bGeriatrics, and ^cAbdominal Surgery, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza Hospital, IRCCS, San Giovanni Rotondo, and ^dDivision of Gastroenterology, De Bellis Hospital, IRCCS, Castellana Grotte, Italy

Article

Publisher ID: 106774 Other ID: Digestion 2007;75:156–163

DOI: 10.1159/000106774

PubMed ID: 17684365

SO-VID: 1a4a232f-792c-42cc-9244-3856c19b1ffa

License:

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

History

Date received : 15 January 2007

Date accepted : 20 June 2007

Page count

Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 30, Pages: 8

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 15

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 251

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Call for Papers: Artificial Intelligence in Gastroenterology

Submit here before September 30, 2024

Pancreatic Duct Stents in the Prophylaxis of Pancreatic Damage after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Analysis of Benefits and Associated Risks

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Karger: Gastroenterology

Most cited references 19

Endoscopic management of adenoma of the major duodenal papilla.

Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla.

Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Page count

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 664

Cited by 15

Most referenced authors 251