Display options
Share it on

United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Feb;5(1):111-118. doi: 10.1177/2050640616645434. Epub 2016 Jul 08.

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

United European gastroenterology journal

Greger Olsson, Jeanne Lübbe, Urban Arnelo, Eduard Jonas, Björn Törnqvist, Lars Lundell, Lars Enochsson

Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Highland Hospital, Eksjö, Sweden.
  2. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Division of Surgery, Tygerberg Hospital and Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
  3. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Center for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
  4. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

PMID: 28405329 PMCID: PMC5384550 DOI: 10.1177/2050640616645434

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP.

METHODS: All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates.

RESULTS: Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40-11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%;

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.

Keywords: ERCP; complication rates; pancreatic stents; pancreatitis; prophylaxis

References

  1. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2011 Dec;61(3):473-9 - PubMed
  2. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jul;11(7):778-83 - PubMed
  3. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jan;101(1):139-47 - PubMed
  4. Endoscopy. 2014 Sep;46(9):799-815 - PubMed
  5. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Feb;73(2):275-82 - PubMed
  6. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Jan;56(1):260-5 - PubMed
  7. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(3):302-7 - PubMed
  8. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Sep;62(3):367-70 - PubMed
  9. Endoscopy. 2010 Oct;42(10):842-53 - PubMed
  10. Am J Public Health. 1991 Dec;81(12):1630-5 - PubMed
  11. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011 Oct;9(10):851-8; quiz e110 - PubMed
  12. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1781-8 - PubMed
  13. J Med Life. 2013 Mar 15;6(1):109-13 - PubMed
  14. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001 Feb;96(2):417-23 - PubMed
  15. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun 14;20(22):7040-8 - PubMed
  16. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Oct;54(4):425-34 - PubMed
  17. Br J Surg. 2013 Feb;100(3):373-80 - PubMed
  18. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Feb;67(2):255-61 - PubMed
  19. Endoscopy. 2007 Sep;39(9):793-801 - PubMed
  20. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Feb;77(2):209-16 - PubMed
  21. JAMA Surg. 2013 May;148(5):471-8 - PubMed
  22. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Nov;56(5):652-6 - PubMed
  23. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Apr;2(4):322-9 - PubMed
  24. Endoscopy. 2014 Jul;46(7):573-80 - PubMed
  25. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998 Jul;48(1):1-10 - PubMed
  26. Gastroenterology. 1998 Dec;115(6):1518-24 - PubMed
  27. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Aug;7(8):834-9 - PubMed
  28. N Engl J Med. 1996 Sep 26;335(13):909-18 - PubMed
  29. J Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;49(2):343-55 - PubMed
  30. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Jan;104(1):31-40 - PubMed
  31. J Gastroenterol. 2010 Nov;45(11):1183-91 - PubMed
  32. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Oct;60(4):544-50 - PubMed
  33. World J Gastroenterol. 2012 Apr 14;18(14):1635-41 - PubMed
  34. Scand J Surg. 2014 Dec;103(4):237-44 - PubMed
  35. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Mar;57(3):291-4 - PubMed
  36. Dig Dis Sci. 2011 Oct;56(10):3058-64 - PubMed
  37. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993 Sep-Oct;39(5):652-7 - PubMed

Publication Types