Feasibility and safety of emergency ERCP and small-caliber pancreatic stenting as a bridging procedure in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis but difficult sphincterotomy

Treatment of acute pancreatitis with early pancreatic stenting: a case series of 336 patients

Background

Pancreatic duct (PD) obstruction and hypertension may play a central role in the onset and progression of acute pancreatitis (AP). However, only a few studies have reported using pancreatic stenting to relieve PD obstruction in the early phase of AP, with conflicting results. Whether pancreatic stenting is effective in the early phase of AP remains unknown. We conducted this experiment in order to study the therapeutic efficacy and safety of pancreatic stenting in the early stage of AP.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 336 AP patients from 2011 to 2018 who underwent pancreatic stenting within 48 hours of admission.

Results

A total of 330 (98.2%) patients underwent successful pancreatic stenting, of whom 23 (7.0%) had severe AP, 178 (53.9%) had moderately severe AP, and 129 (39.1%) had mild AP. Visible PD obstructive material was observed in 94 (28.5%) patients. The mean oral refeeding time since admission and length of hospital stay were 3.5±2.7 and 7.4±6.7 days, respectively. Procedure-related adverse events, in-hospital mortality, and local complication rates were 0.3%, 0.3%, and 7.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

Early endoscopic pancreatic stenting in AP patients effectively shortened the fasting time and length of hospital stay and did not increase the risk of adverse events, death, or local complications. A further prospective randomized controlled clinical trial is currently underway to validate the safety and efficacy of this procedure.

Feasibility of Temporary Pancreatic Stenting after Early Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients with Acute Biliary Pancreatitis

Background/Aims

To assess the safety and effectiveness of temporary pancreatic stenting after early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis regardless of the severity or concomitant cholangitis.

Methods

Temporary pancreatic stenting was performed in 79 patients with visualized pancreatic duct during ERCP. The outcomes of 64 patients with adequate pancreatic stenting (PS) and 15 patients with inadequate pancreatic stenting (no PS) were compared in this prospective, observational trial.

Results

The baseline characteristics were similar. Development of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (7.8% for PS vs. 13.3% for no PS; p=0.50) and mortality (none for both groups; p=0.99) did not differ. However, fewer local complications occurred in PS than in no PS (4.7% for PS vs. 20.0% for no PS; p=0.04) and the difference was most outstanding in necrosis (1.6% for PS vs. 13.3% for no PS; p=0.03).

Conclusions

Temporary pancreatic stenting after early ERCP should be considered safe, as complications did not increase even in cases of inadequate stenting. However, if successful, there appears to be a reduction in local complications.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: When should we do it?

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is an accurate imaging modality in the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, its use has been substantially reduced due to the invasiveness of procedure, the risk of complications and the widespread availability of non-invasive cross-section imaging techniques (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound). Since the introduction of endoscopic sphincterotomy, ERP has transformed from diagnostic method to an almost exclusively therapeutic procedure. Pancreatic duct injection substantially increased the risk of post-ERP pancreatitis (1.6%-15.7%); therefore, according to international guidelines ERP is recommended only in cases where biliary intervention is required. However, the role of ERP in the management of pancreatic diseases is currently not clearly defined, but in some cases the filling of pancreatic duct may provide essential information complementing the results of non-invasive imaging techniques. The aim of this publication is to systematically summarize the literature dealing with the diagnostic yield of ERP. We would like to define the precise indications of ERP and overview a diagnostic protocol of pancreatic diseases depending on international guidelines and the opinion of Hungarian experts, because it may improve the diagnostic accuracy, minimize of burden of patients and reduce the risk of procedure related complications.

Preventive pancreatic stents in the management of acute biliary pancreatitis (PREPAST trial): pre-study protocol for a multicenter, prospective, randomized, interventional, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The outcome of the most common biliary form of acute pancreatitis has not changed even with the better described indications for early endoscopic intervention. It may be due to the fact that this intrevention theoretically can cause further pancreatic injury or cannot always relieve the pancreatic duct obstruction. We hypothesize that maintaining the outflow of the pancreatic duct with preventive pancreatic stents at the early ERCP improves the outcome of acute biliary pancreatitis.

METHODS/DESIGN

PREPAST is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with acute biliary pancreatitis with coexisting cholangitis are randomized to undergo urgent endoscopic intervention with or without pancreatic stenting within 48 h from the onset of pain, and in addition patients without signs of cholangitis but cholestasis are randomly allocated to recieve conservative treatment or early endoscopic intervention with or without pancreatic stenting within 48 h from the onset of pain. Patients without acute cholangitis and signs of cholestasis recieve conservative treatment. 230 patients are planned to be enrolled during a 48 months period from different centers. The primary endpoint is the outcome of acute biliary pancreatitis as described by the latest guidelines. Secondary endpoints include mortality data, and other variables not analyzed as a primary endpoint but related to the pancreatitis or the pancreatic stenting.

DISCUSSION

The PREPAST trial is designed to show whether early endoscopic intervention with the usage of preventive pancreatic stenting improves the outcome of acute biliary pancreatitis. The study has been registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register (trial ID: ISRCTN13517695).

Endoscopic management of acute biliary pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis represents numerous unique challenges to the practicing digestive disease specialist. Clinical presentations of acute pancreatitis vary from trivial pain to severe acute illness with a significant risk of death. Urgent endoscopic treatment of acute pancreatitis is considered when there is causal evidence of biliary pancreatitis. This article focuses on the diagnosis and endoscopic treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis.

Early ERCP and biliary sphincterotomy with or without small-caliber pancreatic stent insertion in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis: better overall outcome with adequate pancreatic drainage

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the efficacy of pancreatic duct (PD) stenting following endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) compared with EST alone in reducing complication rate and improving overall outcome in acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP).

METHODS

Between 1 January 2009 and 1 July 2010, 141 nonalcoholic patients with clinical, laboratory and imaging evidence of ABP were enrolled. Emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed within 72 h from the onset of pain. Seventy patients underwent successful ERCP, EST, and stone extraction (control group); 71 patients (PD stent group) had EST, stone extraction and small-caliber (5 Fr, 3-5 cm) pancreatic stent insertion. All patients were hospitalized for medical therapy and jejunal feeding and were followed up.

RESULTS

The mean age, Glasgow score, symptom to ERCP time, mean amylase and CRP levels at initial presentation were not significantly different in the PD stent group compared to the control group: 60.6 vs. 64.3, 3.21 vs. 3.27, 34.4 vs. 40.2, 2446.9 vs. 2114.3, 121.1 vs. 152.4, respectively. Complications (admission to intensive care unit, pancreatic necrosis with septicemia, large (>6 cm) pseudocyst formation, need for surgical necrosectomy) were less frequent in the PD stent group resulting in a significantly lower overall complication rate (9.86% vs. 31.43%, p < 0.002). Mortality rates (0% vs. 4.28%) were comparable, reasonably low and without any significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporary small-caliber PD stent placement may offer sufficient drainage to reverse the process of ABP. Combined with EST the process results in a significantly less complication rate and better clinical outcome compared with EST alone during the early course of ABP.