Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 75, No. 2-3, 2007
Issue release date: August 2007
Digestion 2007;75:156–163
(DOI:10.1159/000106774)

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

Andriulli A. · Forlano R. · Napolitano G. · Conoscitore P. · Caruso N. · Pilotto A. · Di Sebastiano P.L. · Leandro G.
To view the fulltext, log in and/or choose pay-per-view option

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

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.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

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 or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
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 goverment 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.

References

  1. Andriulli A, Loperfido L, Napoletano G, Niro G, Valvano R, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R: Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications. A systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007, in press.
  2. Andriulli A, Caruso N, Quitadamo M, Forlano R, Leandro G, Spirito F, De Maio G: Antisecretory versus antiproteasic drugs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: the evidence-based medicine derived from a meta-analysis study. JOP 2003;4:41–48.

    External Resources

  3. Andriulli A, Leandro G, Federici T, Ippolito A, Forlano R, Iacobellis A, Annese V: Prophylactic administration of somatostatin or gabexate does not prevent pancreatitis after ERCP. An updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:624–632.
  4. Freeman ML: Role of pancreatic stents in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2004;5:322–327.

    External Resources

  5. Tarnasky PR: Mechanical prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic stents: results, techniques, and indication. J Pancreas 2003;4:58–67.
  6. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, Wong RCK, Sivak MV, Agrawal D, Chak A: Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:544–550.
  7. Brackbill S, Young S, Schoenfeld P, Elta G: A survey of physician practices on prophylactic pancreatic stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:45–51.
  8. Aizawa T, Ueno N: Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:209–213.
  9. Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF, Meyerson SM, Geenen JE: Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:291–294.
  10. Sherman S, Earle D, Bucksot L, Esber E, Pezzi J, Gottlieb K, Lehman G: Does leaving a main pancreatic stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy (ES)-induced pancreatitis? Randomized prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 1995;90:1614A.
  11. Smithline A, Silverman W, Rogers D, Nisi R, Wiersema M, Jamidar P, Hawes R, Lehman G: Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1993;39:652–657.
  12. Tarnasky P, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, Mauldin PD, Cotton PB, Hawes RH: Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1518–1524.
  13. Harewood GC, Pochron NL, Gostout CJ: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:367–370.
  14. Cremer M, Devière J, Delhaye M, Baize M, Vandermeeren A: Stenting in severe chronic pancreatitis: results of medium-term follow-up in seventy-six patients. Endoscopy 1991;23:171–176.
  15. Rossos PG, Kortan P, Haber GB: Complications associated with pancreatic duct stenting. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:252.
  16. Smits M, Badiga M, Rauws EAJ, Tytgat GNJ, Huibregtse K: Long-term results of pancreatic stents in chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;42:461–467.

    External Resources

  17. Ashby K, Lo SK: The role of pancreatic stenting in obstructive ductal disorders other than pancreas divisum. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:306–311.
  18. Esber E, Sherman S, Earle D, Pezzi J, Gottlieb K, Lehman G: Complications of minor papilla endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy. A review of 236 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:405.

    External Resources

  19. Soltani S, Lo SK: How safe is endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy? Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:413.

    External Resources

  20. Elton E, Howell DA, Parsons WG, Quaseem T, Hanson BL: Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy: indications, outcome, and a safe stentless technique. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;47:240–249.
  21. Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, Sherman S, Lehman GA: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone. Endoscopy 2002;34:280–285.
  22. Norton ID, Gostout CJ, Baron TH, Geller A, Petersen BT, Wiersema MJ: Safety and outcome of endoscopic snare excision of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:239–243.
  23. Catalano MF, Linder JD, Chak A, Sivak MV, Raijman I, Geenen JE, Howell DA: Endoscopic management of adenoma of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:225–232.
  24. Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry L, Sherman S, Temkit M, Lehman GA: Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;2:322–329.
  25. Ito K, Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G, Horaguchi J, Takasawa O: Efficacy and safety of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent (Pit-stent) placement in patients at high-risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut 2005;54(suppl VII):A149.
  26. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkins C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.
  27. Hasselblad V, McCrory DC: Meta-analytic tools for medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1995;15:81–96.
  28. Klein S, Simes J, Blackburn GL: Total parenteral nutrition and cancer clinical trial. Cancer 1986;58:1378–1386.
  29. Leandro G: Meta-Analysis in Medical Research. Oxford, Blackwell, 2004.
  30. Shakoor T, Hogan WJ, Geenen JE: Efficacy of nasopancreatic catheter in the prevention of post ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1992;38:251.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50