Greger Olsson1, Jeanne Lübbe2, Urban Arnelo3, Eduard Jonas3, Björn Törnqvist4, Lars Lundell3, Lars Enochsson3. 1. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Highland Hospital, Eksjö, Sweden. 2. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Division of Surgery, Tygerberg Hospital and Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa. 3. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP. METHODS: All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%; p = 0.0033). CONCLUSIONS: PS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP. METHODS: All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates. RESULTS: Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%; p = 0.0033). CONCLUSIONS:PS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.
Authors: Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Angelo Andriulli; B Joseph Elmunzer; Alberto Mariani; Tobias Meister; Jacques Deviere; Tomasz Marek; Todd H Baron; Cesare Hassan; Pier A Testoni; Christine Kapral Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Abhishek Choudhary; Matthew L Bechtold; Murtaza Arif; Nicholas M Szary; Srinivas R Puli; Mohamed O Othman; Wilson P Pais; Mainor R Antillon; Praveen K Roy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Chi-Liang Cheng; Stuart Sherman; James L Watkins; Jeffrey Barnett; Martin Freeman; Joseph Geenen; Michael Ryan; Harrison Parker; James T Frakes; Evan L Fogel; William B Silverman; Kulwinder S Dua; Giuseppe Aliperti; Paul Yakshe; Michael Uzer; Whitney Jones; John Goff; Laura Lazzell-Pannell; Abdullah Rashdan; M'hamed Temkit; Glen A Lehman Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ali Akbar; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Todd H Baron; Zhen Wang; Osama Altayar; Mohammad Hassan Murad Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Basile Njei; Thomas R McCarty; Thiruvengadam Muniraj; Prabin Sharma; Priya A Jamidar; Harry R Aslanian; Shyam Varadarajulu; Udayakumar Navaneethan Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-01-08