Acute pancreatitis after removal of retained prophylactic pancreatic stents

Pancreatic duct stents

Pancreatic duct stenting using endoscopy or surgery is widely used for the management of benign and malignant pancreatic diseases. Endoscopic pancreatic stents are mainly used to relieve pain caused by chronic pancreatitis and pancreas divisum, and to treat pancreatic duct disruption and stenotic pancreaticointestinal anastomosis after surgery. They are also used to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and postoperative pancreatic fistula, treat pancreatic cancer, and locate radiolucent stones. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasonography and balloon enteroscopy, and newly designed stents have broadened the indications for pancreatic duct stenting. In this review we outlined the types, insertion procedures, efficacy, and complications of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement, and summarized the applications of pancreatic duct stents in surgery.

Prophylactic efficacy of a novel method against postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether a novel method including prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement prevents postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study enrolled 200 consecutive patients with bile duct stones measuring up to 8 mm in diameter and retrospectively recruited 113 patients undergoing ordinary endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) without PS placement from our previous study. In the novel method, EPBD and PS placement was attempted with a guidewire left in the main pancreatic duct for patients in whom stable guidewire placement in the main pancreatic duct was possible. EST was performed for patients in whom stable guidewire placement was impossible. The incidence rate of pancreatitis was compared between the novel method and ordinary EPBD, and risk factors for pancreatitis were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 194 patients undergoing the novel method, EPBD and EST were performed in 180 and 14 patients, respectively. Following EPBD, PS placement was successful in 177/180 (98.3%) of patients. Pancreatitis occurred in 7/194 (3.6%) of patients after the novel method and 9/113 (8.0%) of patients after ordinary EPBD. There was a trend toward lower incidence rate of pancreatitis in the novel method. Stent dislodgement by the first postoperative morning and no previous endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) were identified as risk factors for pancreatitis after EPBD with PS placement. No previous ENBD was also identified as a risk factor for pancreatitis after ordinary EPBD.

CONCLUSION

Our novel method is likely to be superior to ordinary EPBD in preventing pancreatitis. Previous ENBD may prevent post-EPBD pancreatitis regardless of PS placement.

Feasibility of the unilateral-flange stent for the treatment of benign pancreatic duct stricture: a pilot study

Endoscopic placement of the plastic stent has been adopted as an initial treatment for chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct stricture. Stent fracture while attempting removal is one of the complications of stent exchange. The use of the unilateral-flange stent in these patients has never been reported. We investigated the outcomes associated with the use of this stent with regard to stent exchange and stent-related adverse events. From 2011 to 2015, 9 patients with chronic pancreatitis and main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture treated with the unilateral-flange stent were included. Eleven endoscopic treatment sessions, 53 endoscopic stent deployments or exchange procedures were analyzed. Technical success rate was 100%. Forty-eight stents were exchanged on a regular basis in 1 to 6-month intervals. Another 5 stent exchange procedures were urgently performed due to stent obstruction and caused pancreatitis (n=2), symptomatic external stent migration (n=2), and concurrent cholangitis (n=1). The rate of symptomatic migration was 3.7%. The mean duration for stent exchange was 29 minutes and no stent fracture occurred during the procedure. Of 11 endoscopic treatment sessions, 7 were successful, 3 were changed to the metallic stents, and 1 was lost to follow-up. According to this study, unilateral-flange stent placement for benign MPD stricture is technically feasible and effective. Stent removal during the exchange period is unchallenging and without stent fracture.

Endoscopic prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is not an uncommon adverse event but may be an avoidable complication. Although pancreatitis of severe grade is reported in 0.1%-0.5% of ERCP patients, a serious clinical course may be lethal. For prevention of severe PEP, patient risk stratification, appropriate selection of patients using noninvasive diagnostic imaging methods such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and avoidance of unnecessary invasive procedures, are important measures to be taken before any procedure. Pharmacological prevention is also commonly attempted but is usually ineffective. No ideal agent has not yet been found and the available data conflict. Currently, rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are used to prevent PEP in high-risk patients, but additional studies using larger numbers of subjects are necessary to confirm any prophylactic effect. In this review, we focus on endoscopic procedures seeking to prevent or decrease the severity of PEP. Among various cannulation methods, wire-guided cannulation, precut fistulotomy, and transpancreatic septostomy are reviewed. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, which is the best-known prophylactic method, is reviewed with reference to the ideal stent type, adequate duration of stent placement, and stent-related complications. Finally, we comment on other treatment alternatives, and make the point that further advances in EUS-guided techniques may afford useful PEP prophylaxis.

UK wide survey on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

In 2010, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy delivered guidelines on the prophylaxis of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). These included Grade A recommendations advising the use of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high-risk cases. Our study aim was to capture the current practice of UK biliary endoscopists in the prevention of PEP.

DESIGN

In summer 2012, an anonymous online 15-item survey was emailed to 373 UK consultant gastroenterologists, gastrointestinal surgeons and radiologists identified to perform ERCP.

RESULTS

The response rate was 59.5% (222/373). Of the respondents, 52.5% considered ever using PPS for the prevention of PEP. PPS users always attempted insertion for the following procedural risk factors: pancreatic sphincterotomy (48.9%), suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (46.5%), pancreatic duct instrumentation (35.9%), previous PEP (25.2%), precut sphincterotomy (8.5%) and pancreatic duct injection (7.8%). Prophylactic NSAID use was significantly associated with attempts at PPS placement (p<0.001). 64.1% of non-PPS users cited a lack of conviction in their benefit as the main reason for their decision. Self-reported pharmacological use rates for PEP prevention were: NSAIDs (34.6%), antibiotics (20.6%), rapid intravenous fluids (13.2%) and octreotide (1.6%). 6% routinely measured amylase post-ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite strong evidence-based guidelines for prevention of PEP, less than 53% of ERCP practitioners use pancreatic stenting or NSAIDs. This suggests a need for the development of British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines to increase awareness in the UK. Even among stent users, PPS are being underused for most high-risk cases. Prophylactic pharmacological measures were rarely used as was routine post-ERCP serum amylase measurement.

Pancreatic and biliary stents

Biliary and pancreatic stents are used in a variety of benign and malignant conditions including strictures and leaks and in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.Both plastic and metal stents are safe, effective, and easy to use. SEMSs have traditionally been used for inoperable malignant disease. Covered SEMSs are now being evaluated for use in benign disease. Increasing the duration of patency of both plastic and metal stents remains an important area for future research.

Prophylactic temporary 3F pancreatic duct stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common and serious complication of ERCP. Difficult biliary cannulation can be a procedure-related risk factor for PEP. Recent studies reported that a prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) can reduce the frequency and severity of PEP.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and usefulness of a temporary 3F PS to prevent PEP in patients with difficult biliary cannulations.

DESIGN

A multicenter, prospective, randomized study.

SETTING

Two tertiary-care academic medical centers.

PATIENTS

In total, 101 patients with a difficult biliary cannulation were randomly divided into the 3F PS placement group (PS group, n = 50) or the nonstent (NS) group (NS group, n = 51).

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic placement of a 3F unflanged PS.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The incidence and severity of PEP in the 2 groups, spontaneous dislodgment of stents, and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

The technical success rate of 3F PS placement was 96% (48/50). The lengths of the stents were 4 cm (n = 21), 6 cm (n = 15), and 8 cm (n = 12). Spontaneous stent dislodgment within 7 days occurred in 94% of patients (45/48). The mean duration until spontaneous dislodgment was 3.5 days. The incidence rate of PEP was 12% (6/50: mild, 5; moderate, 1) in the PS group and 29.4% (15/51: mild, 12; moderate, 2; severe, 1) in the NS group. Severe pancreatitis occurred in only 1 patient in the NS group. In a multivariate analysis, prophylactic placement of PS was the only prophylactic factor for PEP (odds ratio, 0.126; 95% CI, 0.025-0.632, P = .012).

LIMITATIONS

No comparative results for stent size and diameter and a low-risk cohort group.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic temporary 3F PS placement in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation during ERCP seems to be a safe and effective method for reducing PEP and results in a high rate of spontaneous passage of stents without complications.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis: review of current preventive strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the most recent literature with significant findings pertaining to the prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite several promising reports of pharmacologic agents that have demonstrated the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and secretin, there are currently no universally accepted agents for use in high-risk patients. The greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demonstrated through advancements in endoscopic techniques such as pancreatic duct stenting and dye-free guidewire cannulation.

SUMMARY

Pancreatitis requiring hospitalization is the most common complication of ERCP. Numerous pharmaceutical and procedure related interventions have been studied in attempts to prevent this complication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant. The most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and identification of risk factors prior to procedure.