Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis

A novel ultrasound-based algorithm for the detection of pancreatic stents placed for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective trial

Before removal of retained pancreatic stents placed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to avoid post-ERCP pancreatitis, imaging is recommended. The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new ultrasound-based algorithm.Patients who received a pancreatic stent for PEP prophylaxis were included. Straight 5Fr (0.035inch) 6cm stents with an external flap that were visualized by ultrasound were removed endoscopically with no further imaging. If the ultrasound result reported the stent to be dislodged or was inconclusive, X-ray imaging was performed. The endpoints were positive and negative predictive value, specificity, sensitivity, and contingency coefficient between ultrasound and X-ray and/or endoscopy.88 patients were enrolled in the present study. X-ray was performed in 23 (26%) patients. Accordingly, the ultrasound algorithm saved an X-ray examination in 65 cases, leading to a reduction of 74%. Stents were retained in 67 patients (76%) and visualized correctly by ultrasound in 54 patients with a sensitivity of 81%. The positive predictive value was 83%. The specificity was 48%, because ultrasound described 10/21 dislodged stents correctly. The negative predictive value was 43%, since 10/23 stents were correctly classified by ultrasound as dislodged. In 11 patients (13%), esophagogastroduodenoscopy was performed even though the pancreatic stent was already dislodged.A novel ultrasound-based algorithm reduced the need for X-ray imaging by three quarters. To avoid unnecessary endoscopic examinations, the algorithm should be implemented with a learning phase and procedures should be performed by experienced examiners. An important limitation might be stent length since shorter stents might be more difficult to visualize by ultrasound.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for the Management of Pancreatic Duct Leaks and Fistulas

Pancreatic duct (PD) leaks are a common complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, trauma to the pancreas, and pancreatic surgery. Diagnosis of PD leaks and fistulas is often made with contrast-enhanced pancreatic protocol computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging with MRCP. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with pancreatic duct stenting in appropriately selected patients is often an effective treatment, helps to avoid surgery, and is considered first-line therapy in cases that fail conservative management.

An Insight on Pharmacological and Mechanical Preventive Measures of Post-ERCP PANCREATITIS (PEP)—A Review

Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP). With the progress of research in many drugs and technologies, promising efficacy has been achieved in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Recently, combined prevention has received more attention in order to further reduce the incidence of PEP. However, there is no review about the combined prevention of PEP. This review summarizes the medication and ERCP techniques that are used to prevent PEP and emphasizes that appropriate combination prevention approaches should be based on risk stratification.

New practical scoring system to predict post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: Development and validation

Background and Aim

Post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most serious adverse event of ERCP. Therefore, it is important to identify high‐risk patients who require prophylactic measures. The aim of this study was to develop a practical prediction model for PEP that identifies high‐risk patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent ERCP at three tertiary hospitals between April 2010 and September 2012 were enrolled. The dataset was divided into a training set (two centers) and validation set (one center). Using the training set, univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for PEP. We constructed a scoring system and evaluated reproducibility using the validation set.

Results

A total of 2719 ERCPs were analyzed. PEP developed in 133 cases (4.9%). Risk factors (adjusted odds ratios [OR]) in the training set were a history of PEP (OR: 4.2), intact papilla (OR: 2.4), difficult cannulation (OR: 1.9), pancreatic guidewire‐assisted biliary cannulation (OR: 2.2), pancreatic injection (OR: 2.1), pancreatic intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS)/sampling from the pancreatic duct (OR: 2.2), and biliary IDUS/sampling from the biliary tract (OR: 2.8). A scoring system was constructed using these seven clinical variables. The areas under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve of this model were 0.799 in the training set and 0.791 in the validation set. In the high‐risk group at a score of 3 or higher, the incidence of PEP was 13.4%, and all severe/fatal cases were in the high‐risk group.

Conclusions

This scoring system helps to predict each patient's risk and select preventive measures.

The feasibility of pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent with a 0.025-in. guidewire

Pancreatic duct stenting is a well-established method for reducing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is no consensus on the optimal type of plastic stent. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new 4-Fr plastic stent for pancreatic duct stenting. Forty-nine consecutive patients who placed the 4-Fr stent into the pancreatic duct (4Fr group) were compared with 187 consecutive patients who placed a conventional 5-Fr stent (control group). The primary outcome was technical success. Complications rate, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching was introduced to reduce selection bias. The technical success rate was 100% in the 4Fr group and 97.9% in the control group (p = 0.315). Post-ERCP amylase level was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group than the control group before propensity score matching (p = 0.006), though without statistical significance after propensity score matching (p = 0.298). The rate of PEP in the 4Fr group (6.1%) was lower than the control group (15.5%), though without statistical significance before (p = 0.088) and after (p = 1.00) propensity score matching. Pancreatic duct stenting using a novel 4-Fr plastic stent would be at least similar or more feasible and safe compared to the conventional plastic stent.

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

Background

Before performing endoscopy to remove prophylactic pancreatic stents placed in patients with high risk of post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP), X‐ray imaging is recommended to confirm the stents position in the pancreatic duct.

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of prophylactic pancreatic stent detection by transabdominal ultrasonography, to reduce the burden of X‐ray imaging, which is currently the golden standard.

Methods

All patients who received a pancreatic stent for PEP prophylaxis were included in the present prospective trial. First, stent position was determined by transabdominal ultrasonography. Afterwards, it was verified by X‐ray imaging. Retained stents were removed by esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Dislocated stents needed no further intervention.

Results

Fourty‐one patients were enrolled in this study. All prophylactic pancreatic stents were straight 6 cm long 5 Fr stents with external flap. All stents were removed between day 1 and 10 (median: 3 days) in all cases. In 34 of 41 cases (83.0%), the pancreatic stent was still in place on the day of examination. Twenty‐nine of 34 (85.3%) stents were detected correctly by transabdominal ultrasonography. Overlying gas prevented visualization of the pancreas in 3/41 (7.3%) cases. Sensitivity of sonographic detection of the stent was 93.5% (29/31). Six of seven stents were determined correctly as dislocated by ultrasonography. Here, specificity was 85.7%. A positive predictive value of 96.7% (29/30) was examined. The negative predictive value was 75.0% (6/8).

Conclusion

Transabdominal ultrasonography detects the majority of prophylactic pancreatic stents. Thereby, it helps to identify patients with an indication for endoscopy sufficiently. X‐ray imaging could subsequently be omitted in about 70% of examinations, reducing the radiation exposure for the patient and the endoscopy staff.

Radiopaque Short Pancreatic Stents Reliably Migrate in Nearly All Patients When Inserted for Prevention of Pancreatitis

Placement of a pancreatic duct (PD) stent for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP)^1-3 often necessitates a second procedure for stent removal, generally within 2-4 weeks to avoid stent occlusion or injury to the duct.⁴ These procedures are associated with increased costs and may result in procedure-related complications. Stents without internal anchoring flaps were developed to allow spontaneous migration into the duodenum,⁵ thus obviating the need for a repeat procedure. However, radiographic confirmation of a migrated stent can be challenging.⁶.

Identification and management of pancreas divisum

Introduction: Pancreas divisum is the most common congenital malformation of the pancreas with the majority asymptomatic. The etiological role, pathogenesis, clinical significance and management of pancreas divisum in pancreatic disease has not been clearly defined and our understanding is yet to be fully elucidated.Areas covered: This review describes the role of pancreas divisum in the development of pancreatic disease and the ambiguity related to it. In our attempt to offer clarity, a comprehensive search on PubMed, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane Library from inception to May 2019 was undertaken using key words "pancreas divisum", "idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis" and "chronic pancreatitis".Expert opinion: Current research fails to define a clear association between pancreas divisum and pancreatic disease. Though debatable, several studies do suggest a pathological role of pancreas divisum in pancreatic disease and a benefit of minor papilla therapy in the setting of acute recurrent pancreatitis. Surgical and endoscopic therapeutic modalities have not been directly compared. With the current data available, it would be imprudent to advise a definitive line of management for pancreatic disease associated with pancreas divisum and should involve a comprehensive discussion with the individual patient to define expectations before embarking on any medical and/or interventional therapy.

Assessing spontaneous passage of prophylactic pancreatic duct stents by X-ray: is a radiology report adequate?

Background:

Pancreatic duct stents are frequently placed for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Because of concern for possible secondary ductal changes from a retained stent, these stents need to be monitored and removed if retained. Usually an abdominal X-ray is performed to assess retained stent, and if present, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy is performed to remove the stent. Limited data is published on false-negative radiology reports for spontaneous passage of stents.

Methods:

Using an Institutional Review Board–approved stent log, a retrospective chart review of all pancreatic duct stents placed at our institution from 2008 to 2014 was performed.

Results:

A total of 856 pancreatic duct stents were placed during the study period. Of these, 435 (50.8%) were prophylactic stents and 421 (49.2%) were therapeutic. Complete follow-up data were available in 426 (97.9%) patients with prophylactic stents. Six patients (1.4%) were lost to follow up and three (0.7%) expired prior to removal. In all, 283 (66%) had follow-up imaging, with 167 (39.2%) having the official radiology read with no retained pancreatic duct stent in place. Eight of these cases were “false-negative” radiology interpretation (4.8% of cases read as “no stent,” NNH = 20). The stent was found either by review of image by an endoscopist or incidental stent discovery during a follow-up procedure.

Conclusion:

Radiologist interpretation of abdominal X-rays to assess spontaneous passage of prophylactic pancreatic ducts stents resulted in a false-negative interpretation in approximately 5% of cases. Independent review of the images by the endoscopist may be beneficial given unfamiliarity of these stents by radiologists.

Pancreatic stenting to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized multicenter trial

Background and study aims  Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders leading to hospitalization and the most frequent complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Besides pharmaco-prophylaxis, pancreatic stenting has been demonstrated to protect from post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, it remains unclear which patients benefit from pancreatic stenting. We therefore hypothesized that in an unselected population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP increases risk of PEP and that this risk can be significantly reduced by pancreatic stenting. Patients and methods  This study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted at four European centers. A total of 167 patients undergoing first-time ERCP were enrolled in this trial. In the case of inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 5 French plastic pancreatic stent of various length or no routine prophylactic intervention for PEP. Results  A total of 167 patients were included in the final analysis. Prophylactic stent insertion significantly reduced the rate of PEP during first-time ERCP (odds ratio 0.43; 95% confidence interval 0.19 - 0.98; P  = 0.04). The number needed to treat to prevent one case of PEP by prophylactic stent insertion after inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct was 8.1 for the intention-to-treat population. Conclusion  In an unselected patient population, inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct during first-time ERCP is associated with a high risk for PEP. This risk can be significantly reduced by prophylactic pancreatic stenting, which is a safe and feasible procedure.

Stent-induced symptomatic pancreatic duct stricture after endoscopic prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement for the normal pancreas

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Stent-induced pancreatic duct stricture (SI-PDS) is a complication associated with pancreatic stent placement. However, symptomatic SI-PDS associated with prophylactic pancreatic duct stents has not been sufficiently investigated.

METHODS

We examined the incidence and characteristics of symptomatic SI-PDS in patients who underwent pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) between April 2007 and March 2017.

RESULTS

We examined 124 patients with normal pancreases consisting of 75 men and 49 women with a median age of 67.5 years [interquartile range (IQR): 61-74 years]. The median main pancreatic duct (MPD) diameter was 3.3 mm (IQR: 2.6-4.1 mm). The median duration of stent placement was 7 days (IQR: 3-14 days). Spontaneous dislodgment stents were placed in 43.5% of cases (54/124). The diameter of the stent was 5 Fr in 93.5% of cases (116/124) and 7 Fr in 6.5% of cases (8/124). Symptomatic SI-PDS was observed in 2.4% (3/124) of patients overall: 6.5% of patients with an MPD diameter of <3 mm and 0% of patients with an MPD diameter of ≥3 mm. Univariate analysis revealed that an MPD diameter <3 mm was a significant factor for symptomatic SI-PDS (p = 0.048). All cases of symptomatic SI-PDS improved with endoscopic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptomatic SI-PDS occurred in 2.4% of patients who underwent prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement for normal pancreases. Patients with an MPD diameter of <3 mm may be susceptible to symptomatic SI-PDS.

Prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using pancreatic stents: A review of efficacy, diameter and length

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an important procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event that can sometimes be fatal. However, prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) insertion has been performed to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. In some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, the efficacy of prophylactic PS insertion has been shown to prevent PEP. In addition, several types of stents have been used to decrease PEP. In this review, we introduce the details of these RCTs and meta-analyses and reveal the specifications for stent placement, for example, the stent diameter and length and the pancreatic region into which the stent should be inserted.

The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stents against complications of post-endoscopic papillectomy or endoscopic ampullectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection has been increasingly adopted for neoplasms in the major duodenal papilla. Previous studies have reached varying conclusions on whether prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement is an effective measure against post-procedure complications. We aimed to investigate whether PS could reduce the incidence of post-procedure complications.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to 25 December 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) comparing prophylactic PS and no PS against post-procedure complications. The main outcomes measurements were post-procedure pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation and late papillary stenosis.

RESULTS

23 RCSs (1001 subjects) and 2 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the RCSs showed that prophylactic PS decreased the odds of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.36-1.40; p = 0.325) as well as late papillary stenosis (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.07-1.75; p = 0.200; I ² =0%) and increased the odds of bleeding (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.50-3.46; p = 0.572; I ² = 0%) and perforation (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.33-15.50; p = 0.412; I ² = 0%) but not significantly. Sensitivity analysis illustrated prophylactic PS significantly decreased the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.80; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

PS placement was prophylactic against post-procedure complications although not significantly. Sensitivity analysis suggests the significant effect of prophylactic PS against post-procedure pancreatitis. More RCTs are required to validate the statistical significance of our results and potentially relevant characteristics improving the prophylactic efficacy of stents.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using 4-Fr pancreatic plastic stents placed with common-type guidewires: Results from a prospective multinational registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic plastic stents (PPS) can reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Prospective multicenter documentation of PEP rate after PPS placement is scarce. A new 4-Fr stent designed to be deployed over a 0.035-inch guidewire was used to assess the effectiveness of PEP prophylaxis.

METHODS

High-PEP-risk patients received a 4-Fr PPS for primary or secondary prophylaxis at seven centers in four countries. Patients were followed until spontaneous PPS migration, endoscopic stent removal, or for 4 months, whichever came first. Main outcome was PEP rate.

RESULTS

One hundred six (106) patients received PPS for PEP prophylaxis [61 (58%) primary, 45 (42%) secondary prophylaxis]. Median age was 54 years. Eighty-one (76%) PPS were placed using a 0.035-inch guidewire. By investigator choice 99 (93%) stents were single pigtail. Median stent length was 8 cm (range 3-12 cm). Technical success achieved in 100% of cases. Two patients in the primary prophylaxis group (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) experienced mild/moderate PEP. Seventy-eight PPS available for analysis underwent spontaneous migration after a median of 29 days. There were no reports of stent-induced ductal trauma. Post-hoc analysis of migration rate by PPS length showed no statistically significant trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk patients in the primary prophylaxis group, observed rates of PEP are low (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) with the use of prophylactic 4-Fr pancreatic duct stents compatible with a 0.035-inch guidewire. This low rate is not unequivocally due to the prophylactic stent.

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.

A case of perforation of a pancreatic duct by a pancreatic stent during chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic head cancer: a case report

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic injuries are rare, and no treatment plan has yet been established for grade III injuries. In many cases, pancreatic stent placement has resulted in saving patients. However, some cases of perforation of a pancreatic duct during the placement of a stent have been described, and there are also a few cases of delayed perforation by a pancreatic stent.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 62-year-old man had obstructive jaundice and pancreatitis due to locally advanced pancreatic head cancer. Both biliary and pancreatic stent were placed by endoscopy, after which chemoradiotherapy was performed. Four months later, he visited our hospital with severe abdominal pain. We performed enhanced CT and diagnosed the patient as having a perforation of a pancreatic duct by a pancreatic stent; therefore, we performed an emergency operation. Since we deemed pancreatectomy risky, we inserted pancreatic tubes into both sides of the perforated site and performed percutaneous transgastric drainage. The postoperative course was uneventful. We thereafter cut the tubes and switched to internal drainage.

CONCLUSION

Many cases of pancreatic injuries have reported that pancreatic stent placement results in saving the patient, but there have been few cases in which a pancreatic stent causes perforation of a pancreatic duct. External drainage by pancreatic tubes is very effective in resolving perforation of a pancreatic duct.

Prolonged retention of prophylactic pancreatic stents is not associated with increased complications

OBJECTIVES

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can be reduced effectively by the placement of a self dislodging pancreatic stent. The present study analyzed whether a prolonged interval until stent passage evaluation and removal of retained stents is associated with an increased risk for clinically relevant complications.

METHODS

In the retrospective study 182 patients receiving a pancreatic stent for PEP prophylaxis were included and clinical data and complications until documented spontaneous stent dislodgement or removal were analyzed.

RESULTS

The main indication for ERCP was choledocholithiasis (40.1%) followed by malignant stenosis (30.8%). Stent passage evaluation was performed in 34.1% at day 1-4, 23.6% at day 5-10, 17.6% at day 11-28 and 24.7% at day >28. PEP occurred in 13.1% of patients with no case of severe PEP. No association between PEP and day of stent passage evaluation (p = 0.719), retention of the pancreatic stent at time of evaluation (0.867) or prolonged stent retention >10 days (0.234) was observed. Only the duration of the procedure was associated with risk for PEP (p = 0.037). Besides PEP only one clinically relevant complication was observed in the cohort (0.5%) which was a late possibly stent related pancreatitis at day 9 after the procedure that resolved completely.

CONCLUSIONS

A prolonged interval for stent passage evaluation and stent retention is not associated with an increase of clinically relevant complications. A later evaluation and extraction of retained stents might be acceptable in selected cases where an additional endoscopic procedure can be saved due to a planned follow-up endoscopy.

Transpancreatic Sphincterotomy Is Effective and Safe in Expert Hands on the Short Term

In cases of difficult biliary cannulation, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS) can be an alternative approach of biliary access. However, its success and safety profile have not been studied in detail. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to study the overall cannulation success and adverse events of TPS. These outcomes were also compared to other advanced cannulation methods. A systematic literature search was conducted to find all relevant articles containing data on TPS. Successful biliary cannulation and complications rates [post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), bleeding, and perforation rates] were compared in the pooled analyses of prospective comparative studies. The overall outcomes were calculated involving all studies on TPS. TPS was superior compared to needle-knife precut papillotomy (NKPP) and the double-guidewire method (DGW) regarding cannulation success (odds ratio [OR] 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-3.93; and OR 2.72; 95% CI 1.30-5.69, respectively). The rate of PEP did not differ between TPS and NKPP or DGW; however, TPS (only retrospective studies were available for comparison) proved to be worse than needle-knife fistulotomy in this regard (OR 4.62; 95% CI 1.36-15.72). Bleeding and perforation rates were similar among these advanced techniques. There were no data about long-term consequences of TPS. The biliary cannulation rate of TPS is higher than that of the other advanced cannulation techniques, while the safety profile is similar to those. However, no long-term follow-up studies are available on the later consequences of TPS; therefore, such studies are strongly needed for its full evaluation.

Modified prophylactic 5-fr pancreatic duct stent enhances the rate of spontaneous dislodgement: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background and objectives

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement effectively reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients, but the optimal stent remains unclear. We modified a 5-Fr, 3 cm pancreatic stent by removing the flange on the pancreatic side and compared the rate of spontaneous dislodgement and complications with the ordinary stent.

Methods

This was a randomized controlled trial at six tertiary endoscopic centers. Patients deemed high risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis randomly received modified or ordinary pancreatic stent. The primary outcome was spontaneous stent dislodgement at five days and 14 days. Secondary outcomes were the success rate of stent placement and complications.

Results

A total of 276 patients were randomly assigned to receive modified stents (mS group) and ordinary stents (oS group). The placement of a pancreatic stent was successful in all 276 patients. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, major diagnosis, or indications for stenting. At five days the spontaneous dislodgement rate was 47.72% for the mS group and 15.67% for the oS group (p<0.001); at 14 days the rates were 84.21% and 42.65%, respectively (p < 0.001). Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis occurred in 6.52% of all patients. There were no significant differences regarding the incidences of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, hemorrhage or fever.

Conclusions

The modified short 5-Fr stent has a higher spontaneous dislodgement rate than ordinary pancreatic stent, thus obviating the need for endoscopic removal. The modified pancreatic stent does not increase the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis or other complications. The endoscopist can consider removing the flange on the pancreatic duct side for prophylactic pancreatic duct manipulation.

How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis remains the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Recent advances in prophylaxis have improved but not eliminated this problem, underscoring the importance of ongoing research toward this goal. This review aims to provide an evidence-based approach to post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention through patient selection, risk stratification, procedural technique, and multimodality prophylaxis, and discusses ongoing and future research initiatives in this important area.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common and potentially devastating complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in significant morbidity, occasional mortality, and increased health-care expenditure. Accordingly, the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) remains a major clinical and research priority. Strategies to reduce the incidence of PEP include thoughtful patient selection, appropriate risk-stratification, sound procedural technique, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pharmacoprevention. Despite advances in all these areas, however, the incidence of PEP remains as high as 15% in high-risk cases. Thus, additional research towards the goal of eliminating PEP is necessary. Herein is an evidence-based review of strategies to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP, focusing on recent important developments in the field.

Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication following ERCP. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the global literature on PEP prevention to provide clinical guidance and a framework for future research in this important field.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, Ovid, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched by two independent reviewers to identify full-length, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up until March 2016 investigating the use of pancreatic duct stents and pharmacological agents to prevent PEP.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs comparing the risk of PEP after pancreatic duct stent placement (1369 patients) and 30 RCTs comparing pharmacological agents over placebo (10251 patients) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for final review and analysis. Meta-analysis showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents significantly decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR), 0.28; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18-0.42]. Significant OR reduction of PEP was also observed in relation to rectal administration of diclofenac (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.12-0.48) and rectal administration of indometacin (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.79) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49). Subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction with bolus-administered somatostatin (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.11-0.49).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic stent placement, rectal diclofenac, and bolus administration of somatostatin appear to be most effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Prevention of Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: Medications and Techniques

Over the past 2 decades, it increasingly has been recognized that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the most predictable provocateur of acute pancreatitis, with an incidence of more than 15% in high-risk patients. For this reason, there has been considerable interest in the effect of periprocedural drug administration as well as different ERCP techniques on both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Although many agents and techniques have shown promise in small clinical studies, the majority of these have failed to yield consistent benefit in larger randomized patient groups. This review summarizes the data on medications and ERCP techniques that have been studied for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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

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.

Selective biliary cannulation techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures and prevention of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques have been reported to achieve selective biliary cannulation success. For standard biliary cannulation procedures, the wire-guided cannulation technique has been reported to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and increase the biliary cannulation success rate, although conflicting reports exist. The pancreatic or double-guidewire technique and several precut techniques have been reported as useful techniques in difficult biliary cannulation cases. Although ERCP is a useful endoscopic procedure, the risk of adverse events, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, is inevitable. Previous studies and analyses have revealed the risk factors for PEP. The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing PEP has also been reported. Herein, we reviewed reports in the literature regarding the current status of selective biliary cannulation techniques and PEP prevention.

Pancreatic Duct Changes in Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis Treated With Polyethylene and Sof-Flex Material Stents: A Blinded Comparison

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatic stenting is used to improve painful, obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Data suggest that polyethylene stents (PESs) cause stent-associated changes (SACs). Whether a stent composed of more flexible material (Sof-Flex stent [SFS]) is associated with less SAC is unknown.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective study of patients who underwent pancreatic duct stenting of at least 1 PES and 1 SFS on separate examinations and had a follow-up pancreatogram at the time of stent removal. The main outcome measurements were assessed for SAC on follow-up pancreatogram and interpreted by 2 radiologists blinded to the clinical data.

RESULTS

Stent-associated changes were noted with 28% (13/47) of SFS and with 25% (13/52) of PES (P = 0.65). For 10F stent subgroups, SACs were seen with 25% (6/24) of the SFS compared with 50% (2/4) in the PES. Thirty percent (7/23) of the 8.5F SFS subgroup had SACs versus 29% (2/7) in the PES group (P = 0.887) for 8.5F + 10F combined comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who have had polyethylene or SFSs of varying sizes, approximately 1 in 4 have SACs. Despite the use of a softer stent material for therapeutic stenting, the rate of SACs in the 8.5F and 10F subgroups seems similar between the 2 materials and design.

Outcome of endotherapy for pancreas divisum in patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis

AIM: To assess the rate of relapses of acute pancreatitis (AP), recurrent AP (RAP) and the evolution of endosonographic signs of chronic pancreatitis (CP) in patients with pancreas divisum (PDiv) and RAP.

METHODS: Over a five-year period, patients with PDiv and RAP prospectively enrolled were divided into two groups: (1) those with relapses of AP in the year before enrollment were assigned to have endoscopic therapy (recent RAP group); and (2) those free of recurrences were conservatively managed, unless they relapsed during follow-up (previous RAP group). All patients in both groups entered a follow-up protocol that included clinical and biochemical evaluation, pancreatic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) every year and after every recurrence of AP, at the same time as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

RESULTS: Twenty-two were treated by ERCP and 14 were conservatively managed during a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.2 years. In the recent RAP group in whom dorsal duct drainage was achieved, AP still recurred in 11 (57.9%) after the first ERCP, in 6 after the second ERCP (31.6%) and in 5 after the third ERCP (26.3%). Overall, endotherapy was successful 73.7%. There were no cases of recurrences in the previous RAP group. EUS signs of CP developed in 57.9% of treated and 64.3% of untreated patients. EUS signs of CP occurred in 42.8% of patients whose ERCPs were successful and in all those in whom it was unsuccessful (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences in the rate of AP recurrences after endotherapy and in the prevalence of EUS signs suggesting CP when comparing patients with dilated and non-dilated dorsal pancreatic ducts within each group.

CONCLUSION: Patients with PDiv and recent episodes of AP can benefit from endoscopic therapy. Effective endotherapy may reduce the risk of developing EUS signs of CP at a rate similar to that seen in patients of previous RAP group, managed conservatively. However, in a subset of patients, endotherapy, although successful, did not prevent the evolution of endosonographic signs of CP.

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.

Clinical usefulness and current problems of pancreatic duct stenting for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an endoscopic procedure with high frequency of accidental symptoms, and particularly some patients who develop and aggravate pancreatitis due to the procedure may need treatment of surgery or die. Various attempts were performed so far to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis, however, it is impossible to completely prevent pancreatitis at this time because there are various factors for occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. One of the most frequent causes of post-ERCP pancreatitis is considered to be congestion of pancreatic juice associated with duodenal papilledema after examination or treatment. Recently it is often reported that use of a pancreatic duct stent may prevent occurrence of pancreatitis which occurs because of an increased inner pressure of the pancreatic duct caused by congestion of pancreatic juice associated with duodenal papilledema. However, there are some patients who develop pancreatitis even if treated with the pancreatic duct stent, thus further clarification of the pathology and advancement of the prophylactic method will be needed.

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of pancreatic stents for preventing pancreatitis in high-risk patients after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched to identify relevant trials published in English. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to screen for suitable studies. Two reviewers independently judged the study eligibility while screening the citations. The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Jadad scoring system. All results were expressed as OR and 95%CI. Data were analyzed using Stata12.0 software.

RESULTS: Ten eligible randomized controlled trials were selected, including 1176 patients. A fixed-effects model in meta-analysis supported that pancreatic duct stents significantly decreased the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients (OR = 0.25; 95%CI: 0.17-0.38; P < 0.001). Pancreatic stents also alleviated the severity of PEP (mild pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.21-0.54; P < 0.001; moderate pancreatitis after ERCP: OR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.13-0.67; P = 0.004). The result of severe pancreatitis after ERCP was handled more rigorously (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.05-1.16; P = 0.077). Serum amylase levels were not different between patients with pancreatic stents and control patients (OR = 1.08; 95%CI: 0.82-1.41; P = 0.586).

CONCLUSION: Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents may lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients and alleviate the severity of this condition.

Complications of ERCP

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed commonly for therapy. Its role in pancreaticobiliary diagnostic imaging has significantly decreased over time. Despite advances in our knowledge of the risk factors, complications, (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis), remain a significant problem. This review highlights the risk factors as related to the patient, procedure and the endoscopist, and the possible means to prevent complications. The best way to avoid any complication is "to avoid any procedure where the indication is not strong" and especially to refrain from doing diagnostic ERCP when alternate noninvasive imaging such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is available.

Preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Advances in risk stratification, patient selection, procedure technique, and prophylactic interventions have substantially improved the endoscopists' ability to prevent this complication. This article presents the evidence-based approaches to preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis and suggests timely research questions in this important area.

American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). During the past decade, there have been new understandings and developments in the diagnosis, etiology, and early and late management of the disease. As the diagnosis of AP is most often established by clinical symptoms and laboratory testing, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed. Patients with organ failure and/or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible. Aggressive hydration should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular and/or renal comorbidites preclude it. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial within the first 12-24 h, and may have little benefit beyond. Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) within 24 h of admission. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP and/or sterile necrosis is not recommended. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications, whereas parenteral nutrition should be avoided. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis and/or pseudocysts do not warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed, preferably for 4 weeks, to allow the development of a wall around the necrosis.

Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy-associated pancreatitis? A randomized, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatitis is the most common major complication of ERCP and precut endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). Prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement has been shown to reduce the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk settings.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether leaving a main PD stent in place after precut ES would reduce the incidence and severity of PEP.

DESIGN

Single-center, randomized, prospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary care ERCP referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with a clear indication for biliary access and standard biliary ES whereby free cannulation of the bile duct was not possible and precut ES was undertaken.

INTERVENTIONS

When free bile duct cannulation for ES was not possible and selective PD cannulation was achieved, a PD stent was placed. Using the PD stent as a guide, we used a needle-knife sphincterotome to perform precut ES. The patients were then randomized to either leaving the PD stent in place for 7 to 10 days (stent group) or immediate removal after the procedure (stent removed group). The remaining patients who did not undergo selective PD cannulation and stent placement were not randomized (no stent group) and had a free-hand needle-knife ES performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Patients were prospectively followed for the development of complications. Standardized criteria were used to diagnose and grade the severity of PEP.

RESULTS

A total of 151 patients were enrolled. The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics and patient and procedure risk factors for PEP. The overall incidence of PEP was 13.2% (20/151). It occurred in 4.3% (2/46), 21.3% (10/47), and 13.8% (8/58) of patients in the stent, stent removed, and no stent groups, respectively. The stent group had a significantly lower frequency and severity of PEP compared with the stent removed group (4.3% vs 21.3%; P = .027 for frequency and 0% vs 12.8%; P = .026 for moderate and severe pancreatitis).

LIMITATIONS

Single center. Randomization scheme not optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that placing and maintaining a PD stent for needle-knife precut ES reduces the frequency and severity of postprocedure pancreatitis.

Pancreatic stent migration into the portal vein causing portal vein thrombosis: a rare complication of a prophylactic pancreatic stent

This report describes the first case of a novel complication of prophylactic pancreatic stents used to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, whereby the stent migrated into the portal vein resulting in portal vein thrombosis. We review the literature and discuss the potential mechanisms that caused this complication. The approach and prompt treatment that resulted in a favorable clinical outcome are described.

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.

Prevention and management of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is associated with a spectrum of complications such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, perforation, and cardiopulmonary events. These complications can range from mild to severe resulting in extended hospitalization, requiring surgical intervention, and leading to permanent disability or even death. Complications of ERCP have been better understood in the past decade, with adoption of standardized consensus-based definitions of complications and introduction of new recommendations to minimize risks of ERCP. Adequate selection of patients undergoing ERCP, skilled operators using novel techniques and prompt identification and treatment are key to successful prevention and management.

Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is now almost exclusively a therapeutic modality for pancreatic as well as biliary disorders. ERCP alone or with associated pancreatic and biliary therapy can cause a spectrum of mild and severe complications, including pancreatitis, hemorrhage, perforation, and cardiopulmonary events. Understanding of complications of ERCP has progressed substantially in the past decade, including widespread adoption of standardized consensus-based definitions of complications, large multicenter multivariate studies that have permitted clearer understanding of patient and technique-related risk factors for complications, and introduction of new technical approaches to minimize risks of ERCP.

The diagnosis and management of Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) is a benign pathological syndrome. The clinical manifestations may be a consequence of an anatomical stenosis or sphincter dysmotility. Manometry is invasive and has an associated morbidity. Non-invasive investigations have been evaluated to ameliorate risk but have unknown efficacy. The review aims to critically appraise current evidence for the diagnosis and management of SOD.

METHODS

A systematic review of articles containing relevant search terms was performed.

RESULTS

Manometry is the current gold standard in selecting which patients are likely to benefit from endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES). It can, however, be misleading. Several non-invasive investigations were identified. These have poor sensitivities and specificities compared to manometry. There is a paucity of data examining the investigation's specific ability to select patients for ES. Outcomes of ES for Type I SOD are favourable irrespective of manometry. Types II and III SOD may respond to an initial trial of medical therapy. Manometry may predict response to ES in Type II SOD, but not in Type III.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-invasive investigations currently lack sufficient sensitivities and specificities for routine use in diagnosing SOD. Type I SOD should be treated with ES without manometry. Manometry may be useful for Type II SOD. However, whilst data is lacking a therapeutic trial of Botox(TM) or trial stenting may bean alternative. Careful and thorough patient counselling is essential. Type III SOD is associated with high complications from manometry and poor outcomes from ES. Alternative diagnoses should be thoroughly sought and its management should be medical.

Magnetic pancreaticobiliary stents and retrieval system: obviating the need for repeat endoscopy (with video)

BACKGROUND

Plastic stents are routinely placed in the pancreaticobiliary system to facilitate drainage. A second endoscopy is often required for stent removal. We have developed magnetic pancreaticobiliary stents that can be removed by using an external hand-held magnet, thereby obviating the need for a second endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test magnetic pancreaticobiliary stents and retrieval system in ex-vivo and in-vivo porcine models.

SETTING

Animal laboratory.

DESIGN

Benchtop and animal study.

ANIMALS

5 pigs.

INTERVENTIONS

Design: Computer simulations determined both the optimal design of cylindrical magnets attached to the distal aspect of existing plastic stents and the optimal design of the external hand-held magnet. Benchtop ex-vivo experiments measured magnetic force to validate the design. In-vivo analysis: In 5 Yorkshire pigs, magnetic stents were deployed into the common bile duct by using a conventional duodenoscope. An external hand-held magnet was applied for stent removal. Stent insertion and removal times were recorded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical feasibility.

RESULTS

Magnetic stents of varying lengths and calibers were successfully created. In ex-vivo testing, the capture distance was 10.0 cm. During in-vivo testing, the magnetic stents were inserted and removed easily. The mean insertion and removal times were 3.2 minutes and 33 seconds, respectively.

LIMITATIONS

Animal study, small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic pancreaticobiliary stents and associated retrieval system were successfully designed and tested in the acute porcine model. An external, noninvasive means of stent removal potentially obviates the need for a second endoscopy, which could represent a major gain both for patients and in health care savings.

Clinical study on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic duct stenting

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most common and serious complications of ERCP, which has become a major concern for digestive endoscopists. In the present study, we examine whether pancreatic duct stenting can reduce the incidence of PEP. Forty patients who underwent an ERCP in our hospital were selected according to their risk factors for PEP. They were randomly divided into two groups: (1) 20 subjects received a pancreatic duct stenting after ERCP to prevent pancreatitis (stent group, S); and (2) the other 20 subjects did not receive pancreatic duct stenting after ERCP (non-stent group, NS). Urine and serum amylase, and serum lipase were determined after the operation; symptoms of abdominal pain were monitored; cost of hospitalization was evaluated for the comparison. The results show that (1) 18 cases developed PEP, and they were significantly less in S group than in NS group (4 vs. 14 cases; P < 0.01); (2) Serum amylase was significantly lower in S group than in NS group (197.8 ± 339.7 vs. 825.4 ± 1253.4 U/l, respectively; P < 0.05); (3) The intensity of abdominal pain was 3.4 ± 0.8 in S group, compared to 4.1 ± 1.2 in NS group; (4) Duration of pharmaceutical treatment was not significantly different between the two groups (4.2 ± 1.4 vs. 6.1 ± 2.3 days, in S and NS group, respectively); and (5) The total hospitalization cost was significantly less in S group (8928 ± 2635 RMB) than in NS group (11288 ± 4325 RMB; P < 0.05). It is concluded that pancreatic duct stenting can reduce the incidence of PEP, shorten the duration of hospitalization, and therefore, lessen patients' financial burden. It is shown to be an effective way to prevent PEP.

Endoscopic pancreatic duct stents reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pancreatitis is the most common and potentially serious complication of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is caused mostly by postprocedural papillary edema and retention of pancreatic juice. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether placement of a temporary-type, pancreatic duct stent prevents PEP and to identify risk factors for PEP.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 426 consecutive patients who underwent ERCP-related procedures at 37 endoscopic units. The patients were assigned randomly to groups that received stents (S group, n = 213) or did not (nS group, n = 213). The stent used was temporary, 5F in diameter, 3 cm long, and straight with an unflanged inner end.

RESULTS

The overall frequency of PEP was 11.3%. The frequencies of PEP in the S and nS groups were 7.9% and 15.2%, respectively; the lower incidence of PEP in the S group was statistically significant based on the full analysis set (P = .021), although there was no statistically significant differences in an intention-to-treat analysis (P = .076). There were significant differences in PEP incidence between groups in multivariate analysis for the following risk factors: pancreatography first, nonplacement of a pancreatic duct stent after ERCP, procedure time of 30 minutes or more, sampling of pancreatic tissue by any method, intraductal ultrasonography, and difficulty of cannulation (≥15 min). Patients with more than 3 risk factors had a significantly greater incidence of pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of a pancreatic duct stent reduces the incidence of PEP. Several risk factors are associated with PEP.

Prophylactic pancreatic stents: does size matter? A comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr stents in reference to post-ERCP pancreatitis and migration rate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ideal pancreatic stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to assess the relative benefit of 4-Fr versus 5-Fr stents in a population at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the relative frequency of spontaneous migration.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients with prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) from 2002 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients were classified into two groups according to stent size and compared based on outcome; spontaneous migration or endoscopic removal.

RESULTS

A total of 346 PPS were placed in 308 patients (224 women, 84 men). The average age was 48.9 years. The most common indication for PPS was sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Needle knife papillotomy was the most common procedure performed. Forty-seven patients had PEP, 4 Fr (14.6%) and 5 Fr (12.9%), with only one case of severe pancreatitis. Factors associated with higher rates PEP were younger age and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Complete follow-up was not available in 37 patients. Spontaneous migration was demonstrated in 115 of the 4 Fr (95.8%) and 134 of the 5 Fr (68.7%). The remaining 66 (five from the 4 Fr and 61 from the 5 Fr), were removed by endoscopy. The mean delay to demonstrate spontaneous migration was 34.2 days.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS in high-risk patients reduced the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and nearly eliminated severe pancreatitis. No significant difference between the 4 Fr and 5 Fr in reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis was observed. However, spontaneous migration was more frequent with the 4-Fr stent.

Moderate and severe postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis despite prophylactic pancreatic stent placement: the effect of early prophylactic pancreatic stent dislodgement

BACKGROUND

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) is a method proven to reduce the rate and severity of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients; however, PPS do not eliminate the risk completely. Early PPS dislodgement may occur prematurely and contribute to more frequent or severe PEP.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of early dislodgement of PPS in patients with moderate or severe PEP.

METHODS

A total of 27,176 ERCP procedures from January 1994 to September 2007 for PPS placement in high-risk patients were analyzed. Patient and procedure data were analyzed to assess risk factors for PEP, and to evaluate the severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization and subsequent complications. Timing of stent dislodgment was assessed radiographically.

RESULTS

PPS were placed in 7661 patients. Of these, 580 patients (7.5%) developed PEP, which was graded as mild in 460 (6.0%), moderate in 87 (1.1%) and severe in 33 (0.4%). Risk factors for developing PEP were not different in patients who developed moderate PEP compared with those with severe PEP. PPS dislodged before 72 h in seven of 59 (11.9%) patients with moderate PEP and five of 27 (18.5%) patients with severe PEP (P=0.505). The mean (± SD) length of hospitalization in patients with moderate PEP with stent dislodgement before and after 72 h were 7.43 ± 1.46 days and 8.37 ± 1.16 days, respectively (P=0.20). The mean length of hospitalization in patients with severe PEP whose stent dislodged before and after 72 h were 21.6 ± 6.11 and 22.23 ± 3.13 days, respectively (P=0.96).

CONCLUSION

Early PPS dislodgement was associated with moderate and severe PEP in less than 20% of cases and was not associated with a more severe course. Factors other than ductal obstruction contribute to PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP and PPS placement.

Acute pancreatitis after removal of retained prophylactic pancreatic stents

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPSs) are used to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The risk associated with PPS removal is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rate of PEP in patients undergoing PPS removal without pancreatogram or other manipulation of the major or minor papilla.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 230 patients undergoing removal of PPSs from 1997 to 2010.

INTERVENTION

PPS removal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rate of acute pancreatitis associated with removal of PPS alone.

RESULTS

Acute pancreatitis occurred after PPS removal in 7 of 230 (3.0%) cases. PEP was graded as mild, moderate, and severe in 2, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Statistically significant risk factors of PEP after PPS removal include use of a 5F stent (P=.001), use of a stent with an internal flange (P<.01), and occurrence of PEP after the initial ERCP (P<.01). Longer duration of stent within the pancreatic duct before removal was of borderline significance (P=.06). Patient age; sex; indication for initial procedure; the presence of pancreas divisum, ansa loop, or chronic pancreatitis; and history of pancreatic or biliary sphincterotomy or orifice dilation were not significant risk factors for pancreatitis after PPS removal.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Small number of events.

CONCLUSION

Removal of retained PPSs may cause mild or moderate acute pancreatitis. This risk of acute pancreatitis may diminish the overall efficacy of PPS use by delaying the occurrence of PEP rather than eliminating it. This implies that PPSs should be used only in patients at high risk for PEP.