Literature DB >> 21523263

Moderate and severe postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis despite prophylactic pancreatic stent placement: the effect of early prophylactic pancreatic stent dislodgement.

Dana C Moffatt1, Kongkam Pradermchai, Haritha Avula, Stuart Sherman, Evan L Fogel, Glen A Lehman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) is a method proven to reduce the rate and severity of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients; however, PPS do not eliminate the risk completely. Early PPS dislodgement may occur prematurely and contribute to more frequent or severe PEP.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of early dislodgement of PPS in patients with moderate or severe PEP.
METHODS: A total of 27,176 ERCP procedures from January 1994 to September 2007 for PPS placement in high-risk patients were analyzed. Patient and procedure data were analyzed to assess risk factors for PEP, and to evaluate the severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization and subsequent complications. Timing of stent dislodgment was assessed radiographically.
RESULTS: PPS were placed in 7661 patients. Of these, 580 patients (7.5%) developed PEP, which was graded as mild in 460 (6.0%), moderate in 87 (1.1%) and severe in 33 (0.4%). Risk factors for developing PEP were not different in patients who developed moderate PEP compared with those with severe PEP. PPS dislodged before 72 h in seven of 59 (11.9%) patients with moderate PEP and five of 27 (18.5%) patients with severe PEP (P=0.505). The mean (± SD) length of hospitalization in patients with moderate PEP with stent dislodgement before and after 72 h were 7.43 ± 1.46 days and 8.37 ± 1.16 days, respectively (P=0.20). The mean length of hospitalization in patients with severe PEP whose stent dislodged before and after 72 h were 21.6 ± 6.11 and 22.23 ± 3.13 days, respectively (P=0.96).
CONCLUSION: Early PPS dislodgement was associated with moderate and severe PEP in less than 20% of cases and was not associated with a more severe course. Factors other than ductal obstruction contribute to PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP and PPS placement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21523263      PMCID: PMC3088697          DOI: 10.1155/2011/678540

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  20 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.

Authors:  P B Cotton; G Lehman; J Vennes; J E Geenen; R C Russell; W C Meyers; C Liguory; N Nickl
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1991 May-Jun       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones.

Authors:  T Aizawa; N Ueno
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 3.  ERCP- and endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis.

Authors:  S Sherman; G A Lehman
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.327

4.  Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone.

Authors:  E L Fogel; D Eversman; P Jamidar; S Sherman; G A Lehman
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 10.093

5.  Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Ali Fazel; Affan Quadri; Marc F Catalano; Scott M Meyerson; Joseph E Geenen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Safety and outcome of endoscopic snare excision of the major duodenal papilla.

Authors:  Ian D Norton; Christopher J Gostout; Todd H Baron; Alex Geller; Bret T Petersen; Maurits J Wiersema
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success.

Authors:  Martin L Freeman; Carol Overby; Dongfeng Qi
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 9.427

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

Authors:  Pankaj Singh; Ananya Das; Gerard Isenberg; Richard C K Wong; Michael V Sivak; Deepak Agrawal; Amitabh Chak
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Authors:  Abdullah Rashdan; Evan L Fogel; Lee McHenry; Stuart Sherman; M'Hamed Temkit; Glen A Lehman
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 11.382

10.  Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy-associated pancreatitis? A randomized, prospective study.

Authors:  Sang-Woo Cha; Wesley D Leung; Glen A Lehman; James L Watkins; Lee McHenry; Evan L Fogel; Stuart Sherman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  3 in total

1.  Management of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis.

Authors:  John Baillie
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2011-06

2.  Pancreatic duct stenting for the duration of ERCP only does not prevent pancreatitis after accidental pancreatic duct cannulation: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Rita Conigliaro; Raffaele Manta; Helga Bertani; Mauro Manno; Carmelo Barbera; Angelo Caruso; Giampiero Olivetti; Gianluigi Melotti; Marzio Frazzoni
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-08-28       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  UK wide survey on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Authors:  Mina S Hanna; Andrew J Portal; Ashwin D Dhanda; Robert Przemioslo
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-09-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.