Network meta-analysis of prophylactic pancreatic stents and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of moderate-to-severe post-ERCP pancreatitis

Abstract

BackgroundThere is an ongoing debate that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) are more beneficial in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). In our present network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare PPSs to rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of moderate and severe PEP in average- and high-risk patients. MethodsWe performed a systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Central databases. RCTs using prophylactic rectal NSAIDs or PPSs in patients subjected to ERCP at average- and high-risk population were included. The main outcome was moderate and severe PEP defined by the Cotton criteria. Pairwise Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed, and interventions were ranked based on surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values. ResultsSeven NSAID RCTs (2593 patients), and 2 PPS RCTs (265 patients) in the average-risk, while 5 NSAID RCTs (1703 patients), and 8 PPS RCTs (974 patients) in the high-risk group were included in the final analysis. Compared to placebo, only PPS placement reduced the risk of moderate and severe PEP in both patient groups (average-risk: RR = 0.07, 95% CI [0.002–0.58], high-risk: RR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.051–0.56]) significantly. Rectal NSAID also reduced the risk, but this effect was not significant (average-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.22–1.3], high-risk: RR = 0.58, 95% CI [0.18–2.3]). Based on SUCRA, PPS placement was ranked as the best preventive method. ConclusionProphylactic pancreatic stent placement but not rectal NSAID seems to prevent moderate-to-severe PEP better both, in average- and high-risk patients.