Pancreatic Duct Stent Placement Research Articles

Effectiveness of endoscopic papillectomy with stent placement in pancreatic and bile ducts for treating duodenal papillary adenoma: a retrospective study

BackgroundDuodenal papillary adenoma, a potentially malignant benign tumor is primarily treated with endoscopic papillectomy. Despite its efficacy, endoscopic papillectomy has a high complication rate. This study investigates whether pancreatic duct and common bile duct stent placement can mitigate these complications.MethodsIn a retrospective observational analysis, 79 patients with duodenal papillary adenoma, treated with endoscopic papillectomy at our center, were studied. The cohort included patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy with no stents placement, common bile duct stent placement alone, pancreatic duct stent placement alone, or stents placement in both ducts. We assessed the outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy, including complete resection rate and recurrence rate as the primary and secondary outcomes respectively. In the meantime, the incidence of complications were also analysed as the safety outcomes.ResultsComplete resection rates did not significantly differ between patients with or without stent placement (85.7% P group vs. 89.2% N-P group, P = 0.64). Early complication rates were similar across groups. However, significant reduction in common bile duct stenosis was observed in the stenting group (0% B group vs. 10.5% N-B group, P = 0.03). Furthermore, stent placement correlated with lower adenoma recurrence rates during follow-up (2.4% P group vs. 16.2% N-P group, P = 0.03; 2.4% B group vs. 15.8% N-B group, P = 0.04).ConclusionsPancreatic duct and common bile duct stent placement in endoscopic papillectomy may decrease late complications, particularly common bile duct stenosis, and reduce the recurrence of duodenal papillary adenoma.Trial registrationThis study received approval from the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee of Beijing Friendship Hospital (Approval No. BFHHZS20230203), and retrospectively registered in www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06301048, Initial Release date: 02/18/2024, Last Public Release date: 03/03/2024).

The Impact of Difficult Biliary Cannulation on Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Secondary Analysis of the Stent versus Indomethacin Trial Dataset

Background and AimsDifficult biliary cannulation (DBC) is a known risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). To better understand how DBC increases PEP risk, we examined the interplay between technical aspects of DBC and known PEP risk factors. MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing rectal indomethacin alone with the combination of rectal indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement for PEP prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: 1) DBC with high pre-procedure risk for PEP, 2) DBC without high pre-procedure risk, and 3) non-DBC at high pre-procedure risk. ResultsIn all, 1601 (84.1%) participants experienced DBC, which required a mean of 12 (SD 10) cannulation attempts and mean duration of 14.7 minutes (SD 14.9). PEP rate was highest (20.7%) in DBC with high pre-procedure risk, followed by non-DBC with high pre-procedure risk (13.5%) and then DBC without high pre-procedure risk (8.8%). Increasing number of PD-wire passages (aOR:1.97, 95% CI:1.25-3.1) was associated with PEP in DBC, but PD injection, pancreatic sphincterotomy and number of cannulation attempts were not associated with PEP. Combining indomethacin with PD stenting lowered PEP risk (aOR:0.61, 95% CI:0.44-0.84) in DBCs. This protective effect was evident in up to at least 4 PD wire passages. ConclusionsDBC confers higher PEP risk in additive fashion to pre-procedural risk factors. PD wire passages appear to add the greatest PEP risk in DBCs, but combining indomethacin with PD stenting reduces this risk, even with increasing PD wire passages.

Precut Over a Pancreatic Duct Stent Versus Transpancreatic Precut Sphincterotomy for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BackgroundPrecut over a pancreatic duct stent (PPDS) and transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy (TPS) with immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are techniques employed to promote biliary access during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in cases of challenging biliary cannulation. However, limited data are available to compare the efficacy of these two pancreatic stent-assisted precut sphincterotomy techniques.AimsThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of PPDS versus TPS.MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical data of consecutive patients who underwent ERCP between April 1, 2019 and May 31, 2023. According to the selected cannulation approaches, patients were assigned to two groups. In the PPDS group, a pancreatic duct stent was initially placed, followed by needle-knife precut over the stent. In the TPS group, transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy was initially performed, followed by immediate pancreatic stent placement. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) between the two groups were analysed.ResultsAmong 864 patients who underwent ERCP, 46 patients were equally enrolled in the two groups. Selective bile duct cannulation was successfully achieved in 42 out of 46 (91.3%) cases using the PPDS and in 32 out of 46 (69.6%) cases using TPS technique alone, indicating significantly higher success rate of bile duct cannulation with PPDS compared to TPS (91.3% vs. 69.6%, P = 0.009). The overall success rates for bile duct cannulation were 93.5% and 97.8% in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference identified (P = 0.307). PEP occurred in 0 and 4 (8.7%) cases in the PPDS and TPS groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (8.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.117). There were no cases of bleeding or perforation in either group.ConclusionsBoth PPDS and TPS followed by immediate pancreatic duct stent placement are viable options. TPS stands out for its simplicity and cost-effectiveness, while PPDS is more appropriate for patients who are at a high-risk of developing PEP.

Application of split pancreatic duct stent in laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is a classic surgical method for diseases, such as tumors at the lower end of the common bile duct, pancreatic head, and benign and malignant tumors of the duodenum. Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) is one of the most serious complications of LPD. To reduce the incidence of grade B or C POPF and other complications after LPD, we applied a split pancreatic duct stent combined with the characteristics of internal and external stent drainage. Between September 2020 and September 2022,12 patients underwent placement of the Split pancreatic duct stent during LPD. Data on basic characteristics of patients, surgical related indicators and postoperative POPF incidence were collected and analyzed. The results showed that the average operation time was 294.2 ± 36 minutes, average time for pancreaticojejunostomy was 35.9 ± 4.1 minutes, and average estimated blood loss was 204.2 ± 58.2 mL. Biochemical leakage occurred in 2 patients (16.7%), whereas no grade B or C POPF, 1 case (8.3%) had postoperative bleeding, and no death occurred within 30 days after the operation. Preliminary experience shows that the split pancreatic duct stent can effectively reduce the incidence of complications after LPD, especially grade B or C POPF.

A commentary on 'Does pancreatic duct stent placement lead to decreased postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A meta-analysis'.

A commentary on 'Does pancreatic duct stent placement lead to decreased postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy? A meta-analysis'.

Current state of biliary cannulation techniques during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): International survey study.

Background and study aims Endoscopist techniques affect biliary cannulation success and the risk of adverse events during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This survey study aims to understand the current practice of biliary cannulation techniques among endoscopists. Methods Practicing endoscopists were sent an anonymous 28-question electronic survey on biliary cannulation techniques and intraprocedural pancreatitis prophylactic strategies. Results The survey was completed by 692 endoscopists (6.2% females). A wire-guided cannulation technique (WGT) was the preferred initial biliary cannulation approach (95%). The preferred secondary approaches were a double-wire (DWT) (65.8%), precut needle-knife technique (NKT) (25.7%), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (5.9%) or other (2.6%). Overall, 18.1% of respondents were not comfortable with NKTs. In the setting of pancreatic duct (PD) access, 81.9% and 97% reported a threshold of three or more wire passes or contrast injections into the PD, respectively, before changing strategy, 34% reported placement of a prophylactic PD stent <50% of the time and 12.1% reported removal of the PD stent at the end of the procedure. Advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) training and high volume (>200 ERCPs per year) were associated with comfort with precut NKTs and likelihood of prophylactic PD stent ( P <0.001 for both). Conclusions A WGT technique followed by the DWT and NKT were the preferred biliary cannulation techniques; however, almost one-fifth of respondents were not comfortable with the NKT. There was considerable variability in secondary cannulation approaches, time spent attempting biliary cannulation and prophylactic PD stent placement, factors known to be associated with cannulation success and adverse outcomes.

The role of main pancreatic duct stent in the enucleation of benign/borderline pancreatic head tumors: a cohort study.

This study aimed to reveal the role of preoperative main pancreatic duct (MPD) stent placement in reducing the intraoperative main pancreatic duct injury rate and the incidence of postoperative pancreatic leakage following pancreatic tumor enucleation. A retrospective cohort analysis was performed for all patients with benign/borderline pancreatic head tumors who were treated with enucleation. The patients were divided into two groups (standard vs. stent) depending on whether they underwent main pancreatic duct stent placement prior to surgery. Thirty-three patients were finally included in the analytical cohort. Compared with the standard group, patients in the stent group had a shorter distance between tumors and main pancreatic duct (p=0.01) and presented with larger tumors (p<0.01). The rates of POPF (grade B&C) were 39.1% (9/23) and 20% (2/10) in the standard and stent groups, respectively (p<0.01). Major postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the standard group than in the stent group (14 versus 2; p<0.01). No significant differences in mortality, in-hospital stay or medical cost were observed between the two groups (p>0.05). MPD stent placement prior to surgery may facilitate pancreatic tumor enucleation, minimize MPD injury and decrease the occurrence of postoperative fistula.

Diagnosis and treatment of blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma

The clinical data of 20 patients with blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma who were admitted to the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery of Changhai Hospital Affiliated to Naval Military Medical University from December 2003 to February 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 15 males and 5 females with a median age of 39 years (range: 14-54 years). The degree of pancreatic injury was graded according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) scale, including 10 cases of grade Ⅲ (50%), 8 cases of grade Ⅳ (40%), and 2 cases of grade Ⅴ (10%). Then, the strategy of diagnosis and treatment for blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma was summarized. The diagnostic rate of CT was 78.9%. Finally, 17 cases (85%) were cured and 3 cases (15%) died. Among the 10 patients with grade Ⅲ pancreatic injury, 7 cases received distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, 1 case received distal pancreatectomy with spleen preserved, 1 case received pancreatic duct stent placement under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD), and 1 case received only PCD. Among 8 cases of grade Ⅳ, 3 cases underwent Roux-en-Y pancreaticojejunostomy, 1 case received distal pancreatectomy and splenectomy, 1 case underwent distal pancreatectomy with spleen preserved, 2 cases received necrotic tissue removal+external drainage of pancreatic duct+abdominal drainage, and 1 case received exploratory laparotomy and gauze packing hemostasis. For 2 cases of grade Ⅴ, 1 underwent pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy, and the other case underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy combined with right hemicolectomy and splenectomy. Therefore, the treatment of blunt high-grade pancreatic trauma should follow the individualized treatment strategy, pay attention to the control of bleeding, extensive external drainage, appropriate debridement and resection and rational application of damage control surgery, select appropriate patients for conservative treatment, and ultimately benefit the patient.

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.

Pancreatic duct stenting by the rendezvous technique from the minor to major papilla for severe pancreatitis due to papillary stenosis after endoscopic papillectomy.

A pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement after endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is recommended to prevent papillary stenosis [1]. However, there are cases in which pancreatitis due to papillary stenosis develops after stent removal, making endoscopic PD drainage difficult [2] [3].

S1675 Blame It on the Bamboo Stump: A Pancreatic Ductal Disruption Successfully Managed With Two-Step Endoscopic Therapy

Introduction: Non-penetrating, isolated pancreatic injuries are rare, and the management is not well-established and challenging. Most injuries are managed by surgery, but recently several case reports discuss endoscopic therapy for treatment of main pancreatic duct disruption. We report a case of pancreatic injury from falling on a bamboo stump with complete pancreatic ductal disruption and complete pancreas divisum with a dominant dorsal duct that was successfully nonoperatively managed through endoscopic therapy. Case Description/Methods: An 18-year-old male transferred for worsening abdominal pain from a grade IV pancreatic injury complicated by pancreatic ascites and massive pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) sustained a month prior after a non-penetrating fall onto a bamboo rod in the Caribbean. He had failed conservative therapy and 2 attempts with ERCP for pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement. CT A/P and MRCP showed a 13cm cyst consistent with hemorrhagic pancreatic pseudocyst (Figure A-B). Labs showed leukocytosis, elevated lipase and LFTs, but he was hemodynamically stable. US-guided paracentesis drained 250mL of fluid consistent with pancreatic ascites. To allow for pancreatic edema reduction, we elected for a 2-step procedure with separate EUS and ERCP. EUS showed multiple PFCs s/P endoscopic cyst-gastrostomy with Axios stent (Figure C-D). Repeat CT A/P showed decrease in size of the PFCs (Figure E). He was discharged and returned in one week for ERCP that revealed a surprising complete pancreas divisum and total disrupted main dorsal PD, which was endoscopically treated with sphincterotomy of the minor papilla and a long PD stent across the disruption (Figure F-H). The Axios stent was removed a week later, and 4 weeks later we successfully removed the PD stents from both the major and minor papillae. He made an uneventful recovery and remains well. Discussion: Pancreatic disruption syndrome or Disconnected Pancreatic Duct Syndrome (DPDS) is an interruption of pancreatic duct continuity, usually from necrotizing pancreatitis, but can occur with blunt or penetrating abdominal injury, as in our patient. Endoscopic management is a minimally invasive option for DPDS and pancreatic ascites. Our patient had severe pancreatic injury managed using 2-stage endoscopic therapy, demonstrating a successful treatment strategy for pancreatic injury with total main DPDS. Further studies are required regarding the selection of patients, safety, and long-term outcomes.Figure 1.: Image A: CT A/P (coronal) demonstrating edematous pancreas with significant peripancreatic fat stranding, with a peripherally enhancing hypodense fluid collection near the body and tail of the pancreas measuring approximately 4.0 x 4.8 x 13 cm in the maximum AP, RL and SI dimensions (red arrow). Image B: MRCP (coronal) Abutting the pancreatic body is a multilobulated rim-enhancing complex fluid collection that extends from the level of the diaphragmatic hiatus to just above the level of the aortoiliac bifurcation and measures 6.8 x 9.7 x 19.1 cm (AP by TR by SI, red arrow). Image C-D: EUS demonstrating large pancreatic fluid collection (PFC, left) and s/P Axios cyst-gastrostomy (right). Image E: CT A/P (coronal) demonstrating cyst-gastrostomy placement with interval decrease in PFC. Image F-H: Pancreatogram showed extravastion of contrast material at the junction of proximal 2/3 and distal1/3 of the dorsal PD c/w disrupted dorsal PD (Complete Pancreas divisum, left). Placement of a 5 Fr 9 cm Zimmon PD stent with pigtail crossing the disruption at the minor papilla (center). Pancreatogram showing no extravasation of contrast material s/P PD stent placement.

S358 Endoscopic Ultrasound-Directed Transgastric ERCP for Pancreatic Duct Stent Placement to Treat Pancreatic Ascites

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-Directed transGastric ERCP (EDGE) is an advanced procedure utilized to enable pancreaticobiliary access in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy. We hereby present a case of refractory pancreatic ascites from a persistent pancreatic duct (PD) leak treated with EDGE and transpapillary PD stenting. Case Description/Methods: A 62-year-old White female with history of morbid obesity with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliary pancreatitis with prior cholecystectomy was referred for refractory pancreatic ascites causing significant abdominal pain, poor oral intake and weight loss necessitating total parenteral nutrition. MRCP showed a PD leak in the body as cause for ascites (Fig. 1). After multidisciplinary team discussion, a staged EDGE for PD stenting was pursued. The gastric remnant was identified endosonographically through the jejunum, a 19G needle was advanced into it and 500 ml of saline was instilled to dilate the remnant. A 0.025 guidewire was coiled in the remnant and a 15mm by 10 mm cautery enhanced lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) delivery system was used to create a jejunogastrostomy followed by LAMS deployment. LAMS was post dilated to 15 mm and ERCP was pursued after 10 days. During ERCP, PD leak at the body was confirmed on the pancreaticogram. A 5 Fr by 15 cm single pigtailed stent was deployed to bridge this leak. A large biliary sphincterotomy was also performed for a subjectively stenotic major papilla. Follow up CT scan after 1 month showed resolution of pancreatic ascites and repeat ERCP confirmed resolution of the PD leak. The biliary and pancreatic stents were removed. The jejunogastrostomy stent was removed after three months. She continues to remain asymptomatic and is tolerating a regular diet. Discussion: This case demonstrates the successful use of EDGE procedure for management of refractory pancreatic ascites from a pancreatic duct leak. EDGE for pancreatic endotherapy in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy is a safe and effective alternative to more invasive laparoscopy or percutaneous gastrostomy access to the gastric remnant and should be considered in cases with ascites. Watch the video at https://tinyurl.com/ACGAbstractS358Figure 1.: MRCP With Pancreatic Duct Leak.

The role of preventive pancreatic duct stent placement in preventing acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

The aim of this study was to investigate the preventive effect of pancreatic duct stent on acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. A retrospective analysis of the case data of patients who first underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis in the Beijing Friendship Hospital from January 2015 to December 2019 for 5 years. According to whether the pancreatic duct stent was indwelled during the operation, they were divided into pancreatic duct stent group (147 cases) and non-indwelling pancreatic duct stent group (192 cases). The incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was compared between the two groups according to COTTON criteria. Independent sample t test, Pearson Chi-square test (χ2) and Fisher's exact test were used to compare groups' differences. There were 2 cases of acute pancreatitis in the pancreatic duct stent group, all of which improved after 48 hours. There were 22 cases of acute pancreatitis in the non-indwelling pancreatic duct stent group, of which 20 cases improved within 48 hours, and the other 2 cases had severe pancreatitis, which improved and discharged after 30 days of treatment. There was significant difference in the incidence of acute pancreatitis between the pancreatic duct stenting group (1.4%) and the group without placement of pancreatic duct stents (11.5%) (χ²=12.905,P<0.001). In conclusion, Pancreatic duct stent may be an effective method to prevent PEP.

Efficacy of aggressive hydration with normal saline versus lactated Ringer's solution for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a common adverse event in high-risk patients. Current intervention known to reduce the incidence and severity of PEP include pancreatic duct stent placement, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs per rectum, and intravenous (IV) fluids. We compared aggressive normal saline (NS) vs aggressive lactated Ringer’s (LR) infusion for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Patients and methods Patients were randomized to receive either an aggressive infusion of NS or LR. The infusion was started at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr and continued throughout the ERCP procedure. A 20 mL/kg bolus was given at the end of the procedure, then continued at a rate of 3 mL/kg/hr. Results A total of 136 patients were included in our analysis. The incidence of PEP was 4 % (3/72 patients) in the LR group versus 11 % (7/64 patients) in the NS group resulting in a relative risk (RR) of 0.38 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 1.42; P = 0.19). The relative risk reduction (RRR) was 0.62 (95 % CI –0.41 to 0.90) along with an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.07 (95 % CI –0.025 to 0.17) and an number needed to treat of 15 (95 % CI –41 to 6). Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing aggressive IV NS to aggressive IV LR in high-risk patients. The incidence of PEP was lower in the group receiving an aggressive LR infusion (4 %) compared to NS infusion (11 %). However, the difference was not statistically significant likely due to poor accrual thereby impacting the power of the study.

S1005 Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Pancreatic Stents in Preventing Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Introduction: Pancreatitis is a common and potentially devastating complication of ERCP. Prior studies have shown that prophylactic pancreatic duct stent (PS) placement may be effective to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, such as patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction or prior history of pancreatitis. However, prior meta-analyses are missing relevant studies both contemporaneously and since published. We aim to perform a comprehensive analysis comparing PS placement to no PS placement to prevent PEP in high-risk patients. Methods: In conjunction with a health sciences librarian, Ovid Medline, Embase and Embase Classic, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 26, 2021. Randomized controlled trials that directly compared PS placement versus no PS placement in preventing PEP were included. Our primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. Additional outcomes included incidence of mild PEP, moderate PEP, and severe PEP, as well as the incidence of adverse outcomes including hemorrhage, infection, and pancreatic duct perforation. Quantitative data was harmonized using random effects models. Results: The search yielded 1,668 citations, 444 of which were removed as duplicates. Each study was assessed by two reviewers. 116 articles were selected for full text review, and eighteen randomized controlled trials were identified of pancreatic stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. In sum, 1,295 patients were assigned to pancreatic stent prophylaxis and 1,299 to no stent placement. There was a significant reduction in odds of PEP in the PS group (Figure 1, OR 0.36 [95% CI 0.28-0.46]). In addition, PS placement was strongly protective against severe pancreatitis (Table 1, OR 0.25 [95% CI 0.07-0.81]). Stent placement was successful in 98% of cases (95% CI 95-100) and there was no difference in pancreatic duct perforation, bleeding, or infection (Table 1). Conclusion: Pancreatic stent placement is an effective intervention to reduce the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients. Further, pancreatic stent placement is particularly effective against the severe forms of PEP. There is no significant difference in major non-pancreatitis adverse events for pancreatic stent placement compared to no stent placed.Figure 1.: a. Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival curves of time to hospital utilization for inpatients undergoing ERCP, stratified by ASGE 2011 complexity score Figure 1b. Post-hoc analysis of KM survival curve for inpatients undergoing ERCP, ASGE 2011 grade 1 versus 4 Figure 1c. Post-hoc analysis of KM survival curve for inpatients undergoing ERCP, ASGE 2011 grade 2 versus 4 Figure 1d. Post-hoc analysis of KM survival curve for inpatients undergoing ERCP, ASGE 2011 grade 3 versus 4.Table 1.: Odds Ratio of Major Outcomes With Pancreatic Stent Placement ERCP = endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, PS = pancreatic duct stent, OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.

S1028 Validating a Patient Risk Assessment Tool to Predict Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Assist Prophylactic Treatment Planning

Introduction: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication of ERCPs leading to significant patient morbidity and mortality. ASGE/ESGE guidelines recommend pancreatic duct stent placement, rectal indomethacin (IND), and/or fluid hydration with lactated Ringer’s (RL) or normal saline (NS) to prevent PEP. Recommendations regarding which treatment to use are often based on a patient’s PEP risk level and relevant comorbidities. To our knowledge, there is no objective calculator to aid in predicting PEP risk level for patients undergoing ERCP. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews of ERCP patients were completed within a single clinician’s practice at London Health Sciences Centre between 2016-2019. We developed a patient PEP risk screening tool based on ASGE/ESGE guidelines (Table 1) and analyzed its accuracy in predicting PEP in our practice. We then assessed the PEP rate for different PEP prophylactic treatments and determined whether these treatments were given according to the patient’s PEP risk level. Results: Five hundred sixty-one ERCP patients were assessed using the PEP risk screening tool with 6.6% (37/561) developing post-ERCP pancreatitis. A cut-off score totalling 1 for our tool was chosen to identify high PEP risk patients due to its high sensitivity and moderate specificity. Using the screening tool, 79.5% (446/561) were identified as high PEP risk. Patients receiving ERCP identified as high PEP risk by our tool were roughly 4 times more likely to go on to develop PEP (OR 4.81, [CI] 1.14-20.31). PEP rates were highest in patients who received pancreatic stenting (16.7%) or IND (8.8%) +/- RL (11.2%). Using the risk screening tool, all patients receiving pancreatic stenting were deemed high PEP risk and high PEP risk patients were roughly twice as likely to receive IND (OR 2.09, [CI] 1.36-3.21) compared to low PEP risk patients. Conclusion: Overall, our PEP risk screening tool was very sensitive at identifying patients who were likely to develop PEP. Patients with a higher risk level received more extensive prophylactic treatments as expected. The observed elevated post-ERCP pancreatitis rates in patients receiving these treatments might be partially explained by the higher average PEP risk level in these patients. We hope, high-risk patient identification can be improved prior to ERCP, to provide more objective risk level stratification to better assess PEP prophylactic treatment efficacy moving forward.Table 1.: Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP) Risk Screening Tool Based on ASGE and ESGE Guidelines.

Endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic duct stent placement in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis

Aim . Improvement of treatment results in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and signs of the dissociation between the distal and proximal parts of the pancreas by using endoscopic transpapillary stent placement. Material and methods . There were 25 patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome, which have been managed by using endoscopic transpapillary stent placement throughout 2018-2020. Twenty patients have been admitted into hospital in first 24-72 hours of onset, while 5 patients – later than 72 hours. We have diagnosed necrotizing process located in the head and the neck of the pancreas and peripancreatic space in all these patients (“Model III”). Results . Positive results related to transpapillary stent placement were noted in 18 patients (72% – main group). Sixteen patients from this group were admitted into hospital in first 24–72 hours, two patients – later than 72 hours from the disease onset. Transpapillary stent placement failed in 7 (28%) patients (control group). Complications in the main group occurred in 2 patients (11,1%): in one case – the dislocation of stent into duodenum and one patient with bleeding after papillosphincterotomy, infected necrotized pancreatitis developed in 4 patients. Mortality observed in 1 case (5.5%). Complications among control group occurred in 2 patients (28.6) – arrosive bleeding, infected necrotized pancreatitis developed in 3 patients. Mortality observed in 1 case (14.3%). Conclusions . Endoscopic transpapillary stent placement is an effective minimally invasive approach in management of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

Underutilization of prophylactic rectal indomethacin and pancreatic duct stent for prevention of post-ERCP Pancreatitis.

Background and study aims Incidence of Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) ranges from 1 % to 10 % in unselected patients and as high as 25 % to 30 % in high-risk patients. Rectal indomethacin administered before or immediately after an ERCP and prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement (PPS) are associated with a reduction in the incidence of PEP. We sought to investigate the utilization rate for prophylactic rectal indomethacin and PPS in average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP between 2014 and 2019. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis in the IBM Explorys database, a pooled, national de-identified clinical database of over 72 million unique patients from 26 health care networks and 300 hospitals across the United States from 2014 to 2019. Average and high-risk patients undergoing ERCP were identified using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) diagnosis codes. PEP was defined by the presence of SNOMED CT diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and an inpatient admission within 5 days of an ERCP procedure. Results Out of 31,050 adults who had undergone ERCP from 2014 to 2019, only 10,500 individuals (33.8 %) had a PEP prophylaxis. Rectal indomethacin and PPS accounted for 82.4 % and 12.9 % respectively. Individuals with three risk factors had the highest PEP rates followed by individuals with two risk factors. Conclusions Only one-third of all patients undergoing ERCP received prophylaxis in the form of rectal indothemacin and/or PPS in this large population-based data. Increased implementation of prophylactic use is needed in patients undergoing ERCP as supported by current guidelines.

Pancreaticopleural fistula in a child with chronic pancreatitis harboring compound SPINK1 variants

BackgroundPancreaticopleural fistula (PPF) is a rare complication of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that requires a high index of clinical suspicion in the patient who presents with a pleural effusion. Visualizing the fistula tract from the pancreatic duct to the pleural space by radiological imaging provides confirmation of this complication.Case presentationA 9-year-old boy who presented with massive right pleural effusion secondary to PPF, a complication of CP from a genetic mutation involving two mutations of SPINK1. We successfully managed the case with by endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement after failure of conservative treatment approaches.ConclusionsPPF is a rare but serious complication of CP in all ages. The diagnosis of PPF in children requires a high index of clinical suspicion and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of massive pleural effusion where pancreatic pathology is present. A high level of pleural fluid amylase and the results from radiological imaging when the patients have symptoms play essential roles in the diagnosis of PPF. Currently, Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatigraphy (MRCP) is the imaging modality of choice. Endoscopic therapy and surgery are treatment options for patients who do not respond to conservative therapy.

Radiopaque Chitosan Ducts Fabricated by Extrusion-Based 3D Printing to Promote Healing After Pancreaticoenterostomy.

Long-term placement of non-degradable silicone rubber pancreatic duct stents in the body is likely to cause inflammation and injury. Therefore, it is necessary to develop degradable and biocompatible stents to replace silicone rubber tubes as pancreatic duct stents. The purpose of our research was to verify the feasibility and biological safety of extrusion-based 3D printed radiopaque chitosan (CS) ducts for pancreaticojejunostomy. Chitosan-barium sulfate (CS-Ba) ducts with different molecular weights (low-, medium-, and high-molecular weight CS-Ba: LCS-Ba, MCS-Ba, and HCS-Ba, respectively) were soaked in vitro in simulated pancreatic juice (SPJ) (pH 8.0) with or without pancreatin for 16 weeks. Changes in their weight, water absorption rate and mechanical properties were tested regularly. The biocompatibility, degradation and radiopaque performance were verified by in vivo and in vitro experiments. The results showed that CS-Ba ducts prepared by this method had regular compact structures and good molding effects. In addition, the lower the molecular weight of the CS-Ba ducts was, the faster the degradation rate was. Extrusion-based 3D-printed CS-Ba ducts have mechanical properties that match those of soft tissue, good biocompatibility and radioopacity. In vitro studies have also shown that CS-Ba ducts can promote the growth of fibroblasts. These stents have great potential for use in pancreatic duct stent applications in the future.