Pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis should be inserted up to the pancreatic body or tail

A case of pancreatic fistula with disruption of the inferior branch of the pancreatic duct caused by a pancreatic stent after endoscopic papillectomy

A 73-year-old man underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for abdominal pain, which revealed an ampullary adenoma with no obvious extension into the bile or pancreatic ducts. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) was performed and a 5-Fr 5-cm stent was placed in the pancreatic duct. The patient developed acute pancreatitis on postoperative day (POD) 1 and contrast-enhanced computed tomography performed on POD 2 revealed that the proximal end of the stent had migrated into the retroperitoneum, forming a pancreatic fistula. Stent removal and endoscopic nasopancreatic drainage were performed and the pancreatitis rapidly improved. The tumor was completely resected and after approximately three years of follow-up, no tumor recurrence or acute pancreatitis was observed.Retrospectively, the inferior branch of the pancreatic duct was prominent on pancreatography at the time of EP and the proximal end of the stent had dislocated into the inferior branch. The stent subsequently moved proximally, which could have caused pancreatitis and pancreatic fistula. The morphology of the pancreatic duct should be carefully monitored during stenting. Selecting a stent that matches each patient's specific pancreatic duct morphology may help physicians minimize the risk of adverse outcomes.

Adverse Events and Device Failures Associated with Pancreatic Stents: A Comprehensive Analysis Using the FDA's MAUDE Database

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic duct stents (PDS) are widely used for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the adverse events associated with PDS placement. This study aims to investigate the reported adverse events and device failures related to PDS, utilizing the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

Post-marketing surveillance data from January 2013 to December 8, 2023, were extracted from the FDA's MAUDE database to analyze the reports pertaining to the use of commonly used PDS. The primary outcomes of interest were device issues and patient-related adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010, with the calculation of pooled numbers and percentages for each device and patient adverse event.

RESULTS

A total of 579 device issues and 194 patient-related adverse events were identified. Device issues were primarily attributed to stent deformation (n = 72; 12.4%), followed by migration of the device into the pancreatic duct or expulsion out of the duct (n = 60; 10.4%), and stent fracture/breakage (n = 55; 9.4%). Among the patient-reported adverse events, inflammation was the most common (n = 26; 13.4%), followed by reports of stents becoming embedded in tissue (n = 21; 10.8%) and stent occlusion/obstruction (n = 16; 8.2%). The most prevalent device failures associated with Advanix stents were material deformation, with perforation (n = 3, 30%) being the most frequently reported adverse event. Concerning Geenen stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 34, 16.9%) constituted the most common device-related adverse events, while inflammation (n = 20, 16.7%) was the most frequently reported patient-related issue. For Zimmon stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 22, 8.8%) were the most frequently reported device-related problems, whereas perforation (n = 7, 10.9%) and bleeding (n = 7, 10.9%) were the most frequent patient-related adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight important device and patient adverse events that endoscopists and referring providers should be aware of before considering pancreatic stent placement.

Postendoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis Pathophysiology and Prevention

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreato-biliary disorders. Pancreatitis remains the most frequent complication of the ERCP procedure, and it is, therefore, necessary to recognize the pathophysiology and risk factors contributing to the development of pancreatitis and understand the methods to prevent this complication.

Correlation between Pancreatic Duct Variation and Related Diseases: An Effective Method Observing the Dual-Energy CT with Low-keV Monoenergetic Images

PURPOSE

Pancreatic duct variation can affect the secretory function of the pancreas. We aimed to explore the pancreatic duct variation, observed using low-keV monoenergetic images [MEI (+)] of dual-energy CT (DECT), and its relationship with related diseases. We further sought to compare pancreatic duct imaging using low-keV MEI (+) of DECT and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The DECT and MRCP images of 854 patients were evaluated retrospectively. The 808 patients' pancreatic duct types were classified according to the anatomy and the opening of the pancreatic ducts, and the correlation with related diseases was analyzed. The DECT and MRCP images of 852 patients were graded according to the sharpness of the pancreatic ducts for evaluation.

RESULTS

A higher prevalence of acute pancreatitis (AP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), and duodenal papillary carcinoma (DPC) was observed in the variant group. Of the 27 AP cases in the variant group, 9 patients (33.3%) were Type 3c. Additionally, Type 4a was significantly correlated with AP and CP (p < 0.05). Low-keV MEI (+) of DECT outperformed the MRCP images in the sharpness of the pancreatic ducts in 852 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic duct variation is associated with AP, CP, and DPC. Low-keV MEI (+) DECT is an effective method to observe the pancreatic duct system.

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.

The Safety and Efficacy of an Unflanged 4F Pancreatic Stent in Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Patients with Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Prospective Cohort Study

Prophylactic pancreatic stenting effectively reduces the rate and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the precut technique; however, studies on the optimal type and duration of the stent are still lacking. This prospective study evaluated the incidence and severity of PEP and the rate of spontaneous stent dislodgement in patients undergoing transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) accompanied by prophylactic pancreatic stenting with an unflanged plastic stent (4F × 5 cm) for difficult biliary cannulation. A total of 247 patients with naïve papilla were enrolled in this study, and data were collected prospectively. In the final analysis, 170 and 61 patients were included in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups, respectively. The incidence of PEP in the standard cannulation technique and TPS groups was 3.5% and 1.6% (p = 0.679), respectively. The technical success rate of selective biliary cannulation in the TPS group was 91.8%. The spontaneous dislodgement rate of the prophylactic plastic stent was 98.4%. In conclusion, an unflanged pancreatic stent (4F × 5 cm) placement in TPS for patients with failed standard cannulation technique is a safe and effective measure due to low adverse events and few additional endoscopic procedures for removing the pancreatic duct (PD) stent.

Prevention and Management of Complications of Biliary Endoscopy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an essential procedure for the management of pancreaticobiliary disorders. ERCP is, however, associated with the risk of complications including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, infection, and instrument failure, which can often be fatal. It is, therefore, necessary to recognize the risk of ERCP-associated complications and understand the methods to prevent and treat such complications.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intravenous fluid, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these have been evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, but the comparative efficacy of these treatments remains unclear. Our aim was to do an exploratory network meta-analysis of previous RCTs to systematically compare the direct and indirect evidence and rank NSAIDs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or combinations of these to determine the most efficacious method of prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register from inception to Nov 15, 2020, for full-text RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention in adult (aged ≥18 years) patients undergoing ERCP. Summary data from intention-to-treat analyses were extracted from published reports. We analysed incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis across studies using network meta-analysis under the frequentist framework, obtaining pairwise odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for the confidence rating. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020172606.

FINDINGS

We identified 1503 studies, of which 55 RCTs evaluating 20 interventions in 17 062 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. The mean incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the placebo or active control group was 12·2% (95% CI 11·4-13·0). Normal saline plus rectal indometacin (OR 0·02, 95% CI 0·00-0·40), intramuscular diclofenac 75 mg (0·24, 0·09-0·69), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·30, 0·16-0·55), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate (0·31, 0·12-0·78), 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·35, 0·26-0·48), rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·36, 0·25-0·52), 3 Fr pancreatic stents (0·47, 0·26-0·87), and rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·60, 0·50-0·73) were all more efficacious than placebo for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in pairwise comparisons. 5-7 Fr pancreatic stents (0·59, 0·41-0·84), intravenous high-volume Ringer's lactate plus rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·49, 0·26-0·94), intravenous standard-volume normal saline plus rectal indometacin 100 mg (0·04, 0·00-0·66), and rectal diclofenac 100 mg (0·59, 0·40-0·89) were more efficacious than rectal indometacin 100 mg. The GRADE confidence rating was low to moderate for 98·3% of the pairwise comparisons.

INTERPRETATION

This systematic review and network meta-analysis summarises the available literature on NSAIDs, pancreatic stents, intravenous fluids, or combinations of these for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal diclofenac 100 mg is the best performing rectal NSAID in this network meta-analysis. Combinations of prophylaxis might be more effective, but there is little evidence. These findings help to establish prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis for future research and practice, and could reduce costs and increase adoption of prophylaxis.

FUNDING

None.

Spontaneous disappearance of common bile duct stones following the insertion of a new dumbbell-shaped, covered self-expandable metallic stent in a patient with benign biliary stricture

The new dumbbell-shaped, covered self-expanding metallic stent can efficiently remove the choledocholiths in cases with common bile duct (CBD) strictures; moreover, it may potentially prevent a positional displacement and contribute to the better improvement of the CBD stricture.

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.

A grey zone of hyperamylasemia following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: follow-up and differential diagnosis from acute pancreatitis

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a tool often used for treating and diagnosing pancreaticobiliary diseases. One of the important complications of ERCP is pancreatitis. Even though transient hyperamylasemia is a more common and benign situation, it must be distinguished from post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Aim

To define the risk factors associated with post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and tried to identify a cutoff about laboratory findings for positive or negative prediction.

Material and methods

We reviewed the medical files of patients who underwent ERCP for choledocholithiasis in a retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome is the risk factors associated with PEP. Receiver operator characteristics analysis was carried out for determination of cut-offs for laboratory parameters.

Results

The presence of cholangitis (p = 0.018), Wirsung cannulation (p = 0.008), presence of abdominal pain at 12^th and 24^th h (p < 0.001), amylase level at 12^th h (p < 0.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 6^th and 12^th h (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001), white blood cells (WBC) levels at 6^th and 12^th h (p = 0.001 and p < 0.001) were significant for development of PEP. CRP levels above 8 mg/l and WBC above 10 × 10³ had negative predictive values over 70% and 90% respectively.

Conclusions

Physical examination and inflammatory parameters are important in diagnosis of PEP. CRP and WBC have high negative predictivity and sensitivity. Amylase level increase was most apparent 12 h after ERCP and significantly higher (p < 0.001) for the development of PEP. The first abdominal pain evaluation is meaningful at the 12^th h timepoint because insufflation during the procedure and other causes of abdominal pain may result in misinterpretation.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Complications and Their Management Strategies: A "Scoping" Literature Review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a well-known procedure with both diagnostic and therapeutic utilities in managing pancreaticobiliary conditions. With the advancements of endoscopic techniques, ERCP has become a relatively safe and effective procedure. However, as ERCP is increasingly being utilized for different advanced techniques, newer complications have been noticed. Post-ERCP complications are known, and mostly include pancreatitis, infection, hemorrhage, and perforation. The risks of these complications vary depending on several factors, such as patient selection, endoscopist's skills, and the difficulties involved during the procedure. This review discusses post-ERCP complications and management strategies with new and evolving concepts.

Management of difficult or failed biliary access in initial ERCP: A review of current literature

Selective bile duct cannulation is the prerequisite for all endoscopic biliary therapeutic interventions, but this cannot always be achieved easily. Despite advances and new developments in endoscopic accessories, selective biliary access fails in 5%-15% of cases, even in expert high volume centers. Various techniques - such as double-guidewire induced cannulation, pre-cut papillotomy or transpancreatic sphincterotomy with or without placement of a pancreatic stent - have been used to improve cannulation success rates. Repeated and prolonged attempts at cannulation increase the risk of pancreatitis. Repeating the ERCP within a few days after initial failed pre-cut is a successful strategy and should be tried before contemplating more invasive, alternative interventions such as percutaneous-endoscopic or endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous procedure, percutaneous transhepatic or surgical intervention. However, standard guidelines or sequential protocol has not been existed up to now. In certain circumstances, there are unique clinical indications for which invasive, alternative interventions should be preferred. We present and discuss the methods that can be used in difficult or failed initial ERCP, therefore to provide practical advice for endoscopists, especially those who are inexperienced.

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.

Pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) plays a major role in the investigation and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases. However, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe adverse effect. Prior meta-analyses have shown that prophylactic PS was useful for preventing PEP. However, abstract reports and patients who underwent endoscopic ampullectomy were included in the previous analyses. In addition, two meta-analyses involved non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy of PS for preventing severe PEP was different in each meta-analysis. Therefore, we performed the current meta-analysis, which included only full-text articles, and added new findings.

AIM

To reveal the efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement for preventing PEP.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases for related RCTs. Among the reports retrieved, 11 studies were included in this meta-analysis. All full-text articles were published between 1993 and 2016. A total of 1475 patients were enrolled in the included studies; of these patients, 734 had a PS inserted, and 741 did not have a PS inserted. PEP and severe PEP occurrence were evaluated in this meta-analysis.

RESULTS

PEP was observed in all studies and occurred in 39 (5.3%) patients who received a PS. On the other hand, PEP occurred in 141 (19%) patients who did not receive a PS. The occurrence of PEP was significantly lower in the patients who underwent PS placement than in the patients who did not receive a PS (OR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < 0.001). In addition, the occurrence of severe PEP was evaluated. Notably, the occurrence of severe PEP was not observed in the stent group; however, the occurrence of severe PEP was observed in 8 (1.3%) patients who did not have a PS inserted. Severe PEP occurred significantly less often in the stent group than in the no stent group (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-0.94; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, prophylactic PS placement is useful for preventing PEP and severe PEP.