BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement is effective for preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). The most effective type of stent, however, remains unclear. Therefore, we prospectively compared the prophylactic efficacy for PEP prevention between short (3 cm) and long (5 cm) pancreatic stent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2012 and June 2014, 240 consecutive patients requiring therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to remove a choledocholith or for bile drainage for obstructive jaundice were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo prophylactic insertion with unflanged, 5 Fr, 3 or 5-cm pancreatic stent. An efficacy of each stent for preventing PEP was evaluated as a primary endpoint. The period until stent dislodgement and the total adverse event rate were also evaluated as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Per-protocol analysis revealed that the PEP rate was significantly lower with the short stent than with the long stent (2.0% vs. 8.8%, P=0.035), although they were not significantly different in intention-to-treat analysis. The adverse event rate excluding PEP did not differ significantly between groups (3.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.293). The median period until dislodgement of the short stent was significantly shorter than that of the long stent (2 vs. 4 d, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed a superiority of 3-cm stents compared with 5-cm stents for prophylactic pancreatic stent. On the basis of the past reports and the result of the present study, we recommend using a 5 Fr, 3-cm unflanged stent.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000008290).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement is effective for preventing postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). The most effective type of stent, however, remains unclear. Therefore, we prospectively compared the prophylactic efficacy for PEP prevention between short (3 cm) and long (5 cm) pancreatic stent. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2012 and June 2014, 240 consecutive patients requiring therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to remove a choledocholith or for bile drainage for obstructive jaundice were prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo prophylactic insertion with unflanged, 5 Fr, 3 or 5-cm pancreatic stent. An efficacy of each stent for preventing PEP was evaluated as a primary endpoint. The period until stent dislodgement and the total adverse event rate were also evaluated as a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Per-protocol analysis revealed that the PEP rate was significantly lower with the short stent than with the long stent (2.0% vs. 8.8%, P=0.035), although they were not significantly different in intention-to-treat analysis. The adverse event rate excluding PEP did not differ significantly between groups (3.0% vs. 0.9%, P=0.293). The median period until dislodgement of the short stent was significantly shorter than that of the long stent (2 vs. 4 d, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The present study revealed a superiority of 3-cm stents compared with 5-cm stents for prophylactic pancreatic stent. On the basis of the past reports and the result of the present study, we recommend using a 5 Fr, 3-cm unflanged stent.This study was registered on the UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000008290).
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
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