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
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
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda; Rajesh N Keswani; Sachin B Wani; Christine E Hovis; Tarek Ammar; Abed Al-Lehibi; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sri Komanduri; Riad R Azar Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: László Madácsy; Gábor Kurucsai; Ildikó Joó; Szilárd Gódi; Roland Fejes; András Székely Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 4.584