Literature DB >> 24830399

5-Fr vs. 3-Fr pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Elham Afghani1, Venkata S Akshintala1, Mouen A Khashab1, Joanna K Law1, Susan M Hutfless1, Katherine J Kim1, Anne Marie Lennon1, Anthony N Kalloo1, Vikesh K Singh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Placement of a pancreatic stent is recommended for the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatitis (ERCP) among high-risk patients. However, it is not known whether there is a particular feature of the pancreatic stent that is associated with a lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to examine whether a particular feature of pancreatic stents is associated with lower incidence of PEP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of pancreatic stents in the prevention of PEP from September 1993 to June 2013. Trials that reported the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients randomized to one vs. another type of pancreatic stent or vs. no stent at all were included in the analysis.
RESULTS: Among the 1377 citations identified from the database searches, 6 RCTs involving 561 patients were included. Three RCTs evaluated 5-Fr straight, flanged pancreatic stents, two RCTs evaluated 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents, and three RCTs evaluated 3-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents. The probability of being ranked the best was 50.3 % (SD = 0.5, Markov chain error = 0.003) for 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged pancreatic stents, 46.5 % for 5-Fr straight, flanged stents, and 3.1 % for 3-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents.
CONCLUSION: The 5-Fr pancreatic stent is superior to the 3-Fr pancreatic stent for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients. The 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged pancreatic stent and 5-Fr straight, flanged pancreatic stent performed similarly and both performed better than the 3-Fr pancreatic stent in preventing PEP, suggesting that stent diameter is more important for the prevention of PEP than type of stent or the presence of flanges. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24830399     DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365701

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  10 in total

1.  The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: A nationwide, register-based study.

Authors:  Greger Olsson; Jeanne Lübbe; Urban Arnelo; Eduard Jonas; Björn Törnqvist; Lars Lundell; Lars Enochsson
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 2.  Preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: what can be done?

Authors:  Goran Hauser; Marko Milosevic; Davor Stimac; Enver Zerem; Predrag Jovanović; Ivana Blazevic
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  Benedetto Mangiavillano; Nico Pagano; Todd H Baron; Carmelo Luigiano
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Endoscopic placement of pancreatic stent for "Deep" pancreatic enucleations operative technique and preliminary experience at two high-volume centers.

Authors:  Tommaso Giuliani; Giovanni Marchegiani; Mark D Girgis; Stefano Francesco Crinò; Venkataraman R Muthusamy; Laura Bernardoni; Antonio Pea; Marco Ramera; Salvatore Paiella; Luca Landoni; Armando Gabbrielli; Roberto Salvia; Timothy R Donahue; Claudio Bassi
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Transabdominal ultrasonography to reduce the burden of X-ray imaging in prophylactic pancreatic stent localization after ERCP-A prospective trial.

Authors:  Florian Alexander Michael; Ludmilla Gerber; Nina Weiler; Peter Marton Hunyady; Nada Abedin; Anna-Lena Laguna de la Vera; Philipp Stoffers; Natalie Filmann; Stefan Zeuzem; Jörg Bojunga; Mireen Friedrich-Rust; Georg Dultz
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Adverse Events Associated With Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Pancreatography.

Authors:  Samuel Han; Augustin R Attwell; Philip Tatman; Steven A Edmundowicz; Hazem T Hammad; Mihir S Wagh; Sachin Wani; Raj J Shah
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.243

7.  Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation.

Authors:  Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.275

Review 8.  Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: What We Already Know.

Authors:  Adham E Obeidat; Ratib Mahfouz; Gabriel Monti; Landon Kozai; Mohammad Darweesh; Mahmoud M Mansour; Ahmad Alqam; David Hernandez
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-31

9.  The Safety and Efficacy of an Unflanged 4F Pancreatic Stent in Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Patients with Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Jieun Ryu; Kyu-Hyun Paik; Chang-Il Kwon; Dong Hee Koh; Tae Jun Song; Seok Jeong; Won Suk Park
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 4.964

10.  A long (7 cm) prophylactic pancreatic stent decreases incidence of post-endoscopic papillectomy pancreatitis: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Kazuhiro Minami; Eisuke Iwasaki; Shintaro Kawasaki; Seiichiro Fukuhara; Takashi Seino; Tadashi Katayama; Yoichi Takimoto; Hiroki Tamagawa; Yujiro Machida; Masayasu Horibe; Minoru Kitago; Haruhiko Ogata; Takanori Kanai
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-11-25
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.