Pancreatic Duct Stents in the Prophylaxis of Pancreatic Damage after Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Analysis of Benefits and Associated RisksAndriulli A.a · Forlano R.a · Napolitano G.a · Conoscitore P.a · Caruso N.a · Pilotto A.b · Di Sebastiano P.L.c · Leandro G.d
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
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
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.
© 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: 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 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.