Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Research Articles

Revised Clinical Practice Guideline of Korean Pancreatobiliary Association for Common Bile Duct Stones: Endoscopic Management of Common Bile Duct Stones

For the optimal treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones, several facts should be considered before or during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic antibiotics is necessary for the patients with high risk of post ERCP cholangitis and cessation of anticoagulant should be considered for prevention of complications associated with post ERCP bleeding. Furthermore, endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation can be replaced with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with bleeding tendency such as chronic kidney disease, liver cirrhosis, thrombocytopenia etc. Prophylactic pancreatic duct stent can be helpful in reducing post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) but caution is required as excessive attempts for selective cannulation into pancreatic duct for stent insertion can cause PEP. If gallbladder stone is present and treatment for CBD stones has been completed, prophylactic cholecystectomy should be performed selectively after consideration of patient’s condition.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of post-ampullectomy pancreatitis: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 1858 patients.

The effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications. Multiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics. Thirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3-14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9-15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4-20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51-1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3-81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19-32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively. Our analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

Indomethacin Does Not Reduce Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-Risk Patients Receiving Pancreatic Stenting.

Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is insufficient evidence regarding its added benefits in patients already receiving prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of indomethacin in high-risk patients undergoing pancreatic stenting. A cohort study was conducted on all patients who underwent the rescue cannulation technique for challenging bile duct cannulation (selected high-risk patients). Patients were split into two groups based on the prophylaxis method for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP): one receiving a combination of indomethacin and pancreatic stenting, while the other received pancreatic stenting alone. Comparative analyses were carried out on PEP, hyperamylasemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, and postoperative hospital stay among post-ERCP pancreatitis patients. Between November 2017 and May 2023, a total of 607 patients with native papillae were enrolled, with 140 grouped into the indomethacin plus stent group and 467 into the stent alone group. The overall PEP rate was 4.4% in the entire cohort, with no statistical differences observed between the groups in terms of PEP rates (P = 0.407), mild PEP (P = 0.340), moderate to severe PEP (P = 1.000), hyperamylasemia (P = 0.543), gastrointestinal bleeding (P = 0.392), and postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.521). Furthermore, sensitivity analysis using multivariable analysis also validated these findings. Indomethacin did not reduce the incidence or severity of PEP in high-risk patients who routinely received prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. Therefore, the additional administration of rectal indomethacin to further mitigate PEP appears to be not necessary.

Prognostic Factors for Severe-to-Fatal Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

The prognostic factors associated with severe-to-fatal post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) remain unclear despite the extensive number of studies on PEP. In total, 3739 ERCP patients with biliary disease with an intact papilla and indicated for ERCP were prospectively enrolled at 36 centers from April 2017 to March 2018. Those with acute pancreatitis diagnosed before ERCP, altered gastrointestinal anatomy, and an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status > 4 were excluded. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed on patient-related factors, operator-related factors, procedure-related factors, and preventive measures to identify potential prognostic factors for severe-to-fatal PEP. Multivariate analyses revealed pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation (OR 13.59, 95% CI 4.21-43.83, p < 0.001), post-ERCP non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) administration (OR 11.54, 95% CI 3.83-34.81, p < 0.001), and previous pancreatitis (OR 6.94, 95% CI 1.45-33.33, p = 0.015) as significant risk factors for severe-to-fatal PEP. Preventive measures included endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST; OR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.11-0.79, p = 0.015) and prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPSs; OR 0.11, 95% CI, 0.01-0.87, p = 0.036). In biliary ERCP, pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation, NSAID administration after ERCP, and previous pancreatitis were risk factors for severe-to-fatal PEP, whereas EST and PPS were significant preventive measures for severe-to-fatal PEP.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial

The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. US National Institutes of Health.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP

S32 Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stenting to Reduce the Risk of Post Ampullectomy Pancreatitis: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of 1858 Patients

S32 Prophylactic Pancreatic Duct Stenting to Reduce the Risk of Post Ampullectomy Pancreatitis: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis of 1858 Patients

Utilization pattern of prophylactic measures for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a National Survey Study.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event of ERCP. Various prophylactic measures are endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to both lower the incidence of PEP and to decrease its severity. The extent to which these interventions are practiced throughout the United States is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the utilization pattern of various PEP measures and determine factors that affect utilization of these measures. A 27-question electronic survey was distributed using a cloud-based program (Qualtrics). The questions assessed ERCP training, practice setting, experience, practice patterns, and perceptions for PEP prophylaxis interventions. Endoscopists with practices based in the United States listed in the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy member directory received a survey invitation via e-mail. The invitation outlined the study and contained a link with instructions to complete the voluntary survey if they had an active ERCP practice. Data were de-identified for the purposes of analysis. Of survey respondents (N= 319), 46% reported therapeutic endoscopy fellowship training and 37% practiced in teaching programs. Annualized ERCP volume of >100 cases per year were reported by 47%, with pancreatic ERCP comprising≤5% of procedure volume reported by the majority of respondents (61%). The majority of respondents used prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS), and 54% reported frequent use during high-risk ERCP. The most common indications for PPS were difficult cannulation, to assist biliary access, and multiple pancreatic duct injections. Most respondents reported frequent use of indomethacin (89%). Of physicians who did not use PPS, use of indomethacin was the most common reason (80%). Variables associated with frequent use of PPS were ERCP fellowship training (P≤ .001), practice at a teaching program (P≤ .001),<10 years in practice (P= .005), higher procedure volume (P≤ .001), and higher proportion of pancreatic cases (P≤ .001). Physicians with higher annual ERCP volume, who teach at hospital-based ERCP practices, and who regularly perform pancreatic ERCP are more likely to use PPS. Therapeutic ERCP fellowship training and recent entry into practice were also associated with PPS utilization. Indomethacin use seems to be more frequent than PPS. Our findings suggest that indomethacin is supplanting PPS as the preferred method of PEP prophylaxis.

Endoscopic transgastric extraction of a prophylactic pancreatic single-pigtail plastic stent that had previously migrated into the caudal part of the Wirsung duct.

We present the case of a 50-year-old patient who had undergone a previous endoscopic ampullectomy. A 5-Fr single-pigtail plastic stent was inserted into the Wirsung duct in order to prevent postresection acute pancreatitis [1]. Unfortunately, the stent immediately migrated distally into the pancreatic duct, was impossible to extract on endoscopy, and later lead to severe necrotizing pancreatitis of the body and tail of the pancreas. The patient remained septic and the perisplenic necrotic cavities were filled with collected necrotic material ([Fig. 1]), so we performed endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage using a fully covered lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS; Axios; Boston Scientific, USA) ([Fig. 2] and [Fig. 3 a]) [2]. Despite this leading to a rapid amelioration of the necrotizing pancreatitis, there remained the problem of the migrated intrapancreatic stent.

A comparison of two types of contrast media used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A retrospective study.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most serious complications of ERCP. Various procedures can reduce the incidence of PEP, such as wire-guided cannulation, prophylactic pancreatic stent placement, and pretreatment anal insertion of NSAIDs. Recently, iso-osmolar contrast media (IOCM) have been used for ERCP in several hospitals to reduce the risk of PEP in Japan. However, the effect of IOCM is uncertain because few reports have examined IOCM in relation to PEP. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between contrast media used and the incidence of PEP. This retrospective study included all qualifying patients who had undergone ERCP at Hamamatsu University Hospital between January 2012 and January 2020. This study examined whether there was a difference in the onset of PEP between patients administered IOCM and high osmolar contrast medium (HOCM). Propensity score matching was used to analyze patient characteristics and ERCP procedures. Amidotrizoic acid was used as HOCM and iodixanol as IOCM. ERCP was performed on 458 patients, and 830 procedures were conducted. After propensity score matching, 162 patients from the amidotrizoic acid group and 162 patients from the iodixanol group were selected. The incidence of PEP was 10.5% (17) in the amidotrizoic acid group and 9.3% (15) in the iodixanol group (P = 0.71). Changes in serum amylase levels post- and pre-ERCP were 240.6 ± 573.8 U/L and 142.7 ± 382.1 U/L in the amidotrizoic acid and iodixanol groups, respectively (P = 0.072). Iodixanol had no prophylactic effect on PEP and clinical outcomes.

Combinatorial Effect of Prophylactic Interventions for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis among Patients with Risk Factors: A Network Meta-Analysis.

The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors. A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP. We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score. The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

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.

Clinical benefit of early precut sphincintroterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

A precut procedure is sometimes required for difficult biliary cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, it is unclear whether the biliary access rate has improved for early precut procedures compared to conventional techniques. This study aimed to identify the benefit of early precut sphincterotomy in cases showing difficult biliary access. BetweenApril 2017 and August 2021, consecutive patients who underwent precutting for difficult biliary cannulation were retrospectively enrolled. The outcomes of early (≤ 10min from start of cannulation) and delayed (> 10min) precut groups were evaluated. All adverse events were defined according to Cotton criteria. A total of 70 patients were enrolled in this study. The biliary cannulation rate for a first ERCP was significantly higher in the early compared to delayed precut group (95% vs. 73.3%; P = 0.015). A difference in overall cannulation rate between the two groups was not observed (97.5% vs. 83.3%; P > 0.05). Significantly higher rates of prophylactic pancreatic stents were described in the delayed compared to early precut group (36.7% vs. 12.5%; P = 0.009). Significant differences in the frequency of pancreatitis, bleeding, penetration, and perforation were not noted between the two groups. Overall, the success rate was statistically significant between the experienced and less experienced endoscopists (87.2% vs. 63.9%; P = 0.017). Early precutting within 10min from the start of cannulation in ERCP is safe and effective in cases with a difficult biliary cannulation, and can improve the biliary cannulation rate.

Multicenter prospective cohort study of adverse events associated with biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Incidence of adverse events and preventive measures for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

ObjectivesThe reported incidence of adverse events (AEs) in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) varies between 2.5% and 14%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence and severity of AEs in biliary ERCP and to specify the risk factors and preventive measures for post‐ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).MethodsPatients with biliary disease with intact papilla were prospectively enrolled at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The primary outcomes were the incidence and severity of AEs.ResultsA total of 16,032 ERCP procedures were performed at the 36 hospitals during the study period and 3739 patients were enrolled. The overall incidence of AEs was 10.1% and ERCP‐related mortality was 0.08%. PEP developed in 258 cases (6.9%), bleeding in 33 (0.9%), instrumental AEs in 17 (0.5%), infections in 37 (1.0%), cardiovascular AEs in eight (0.2%), pulmonary AEs in eight (0.2%), drug reaction AE in one (0.03%), pain in 15 (0.4%), and other AEs in 15 (0.4%). Multivariable analysis showed significant risk factors for PEP were: female of younger age, pancreatic guidewire‐assisted biliary cannulation, temporary guidewire insertion into the pancreatic duct, total procedure time >60 min, and post‐ERCP administration of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs. Effective preventive measures were prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PPS) and epinephrine spraying onto the papilla.ConclusionsIn patients with intact papilla who underwent biliary ERCP, the incidence of AEs was 10.1% and the mortality was 0.08%. PPS and epinephrine spraying may prevent PEP.RegistrationThis study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000024820).

Successful endoscopic retrieval of a migrated pancreatic stent using a basket catheter for peroral cholangioscopy through a biliary plastic stent pusher tube: a case report.

Objective: Retrieval is challenging once prophylactic pancreatic stents migrate deep into the pancreatic duct. Herein, we describe a case of successful endoscopic retrieval of a migrated prophylactic pancreatic stent using a basket catheter through a biliary plastic stent pusher tube.Patient: A 71 year-old man was referred to our hospital for removal of a straight-shaped migrated 5-Fr 3-cm prophylactic pancreatic stent with a flap on the duodenal side. There were no subjective symptoms at the time of the hospital visit.Results: During endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, we inserted an 8.5-Fr plastic biliary stent pusher tube in front of the migrated pancreatic stent. The stent was then grasped using a basket catheter for peroral cholangioscopy through the biliary stent pusher tube. The stent was pulled into the pusher tube and was successfully retrieved from the pancreatic duct. No complications were associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Conclusion: Although rare, prophylactic pancreatic duct stent migration after pancreatic duct guidewire placement should be noted. In our case, endoscopic retrieval of a migrated prophylactic pancreatic stent using a basket catheter for peroral cholangioscopy through the biliary plastic stent pusher tube was successful.

Patient-related post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk factors between two groups of patients: Prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin.

Pancreatitis is one of the most crucial complications following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The purpose of the current study was to investigate patient-related post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk factors in two groups of patients: prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin. Two different prophylactic modalities were planned and complications were assessed based on the defined inclusion criteria. In this study, the patients were evaluated for the procedure and patient-related risk factors in post-ERCP pancreatitis in the recipient groups of the prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin. Pancreatitis was confirmed in 27 of all 170 selected patients after ERCP. By univariate analysis, two variables were significant with the development of PEP. Regarding the patient-related risk factors, unique subjects with common bile duct (CBD) dilated 10mm were more exposed to an increased chance of PEP (P=0. 015); meanwhile, other factors did not correlate with the increased possibility of PEP in both groups. The only procedure-related risk factor for PEP was the deep cannulation of the pancreatic duct in both groups during the procedure with an incremental significant incidence of pancreatitis (P=0.005). Comparison of prophylactic pancreatic stent and rectal indomethacin showed no effects in term of post ERCP pancreatitis reduction. Additionally, there was no significant difference between these two strategies in the rate of PEP. Prophylactic pancreatic duct stents and administration of rectal indomethacin cannot have particular approaches for reducing the possible occurrence of PEP. The increase in time of deep cannulation and the presence of CBD dilation <10mm could be considered as important risk factors.

Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis using pancreatic duct stenting in difficult cannulation patients with calcular biliary bbstruction

Background: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been the most frequent complication of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). It has been documented to happen after 5–30% of ERCP procedures. PEP is new or exacerbated abdominal pain associated with a serum lipase or amylase concentration which is more than three times the upper limit of normal at 24 hours post-ERCP, requiring at least two days of prolongation of the planned admission. Following pancreatic sphincterotomy, pancreatic stenting is commonly used with the objective of decreasing both early restenosis and post-ERCP pancreatitis. Aim of the work: Evaluation of the pancreatic stenting technique as a preventive measure against post ERCP pancreatitis in calcular obstructive jaundice patients with difficult cannulation. Patients and methods: Forty Egyptian patients with calcular biliary obstruction with a difficult biliary cannulation who are at risk of developing PEP enrolled in a prospective randomized controlled comparative study. Group A: 20 patients with manipulation of pancreatic duct by guidewire without pancreatic stent insertion; Group B: 20 patients with manipulation of pancreatic duct by guidewire with pancreatic stent insertion.Results: The pancreatic duct stenting technique had reduced the risk of PEP significantly in calcular biliary obstruction patients with difficult CBD cannulation to 20?% (in group B) compared with 60?% in (group A).Conclusion: Prophylactic pancreatic stenting technique is a simple and easy procedure that showed to be efficient in decreasing cases of post ERCP pancreatitis in difficult cannulation patients. The endoscopists should be trained to practice the procedure safely.

S3374 Plastic vs Metal Stents for Anastomotic Biliary Strictures After Orthotopic Liver Transplant (OLT)

Introduction: Biliary anastomotic stricture is the most common complication of orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) occurring in about 20% of cases. Endoscopic stent placement across the stricture with plastic or metal stents is the first-line treatment strategy. The aim of this study is to investigate the difference between plastic and metal stents in terms of anastomotic biliary stricture resolution and adverse events. Methods: This is a retrospective study of post OLT patients who underwent ERCP over a 3-year period between 2018-2020. Out of 178 post OLT patients who underwent ERCP, 108 were excluded because of only one ERCP performed and repeat ERCP was not indicated or because ERCP was performed for indications other than anastomotic biliary strictures. Data was collected up to 3 consecutive ERCP procedures during the studied period. Results: A total of 70 patients with anastomotic biliary strictures were included in the study. ERCP was performed on a native papilla in 32 (45.7%), advanced cannulation techniques were performed in 5 (7.1%), and prophylactic pancreatic stents were placed in 6 (8.6%) cases. Plastic stents (PS) were used in 53 (75.7%) of which multiple plastic stents were used in 27 cases, whereas 17 (24.3%) cases were treated with fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS). Average follow up duration was 2.2 (1-3) months for PS and 3.7 (2-5) months for FCSEMS (P < 0.01). Biliary strictures resolved in 21 (30.0%) patients on repeat ERCP most of which from the FCSEMS group (58.8% vs 20.8%) (P = 0.009). Plastic stents were exchanged to FCSEMS in 11 (20.8%) patients during the second ERCP follow-up. On the third ERCP during the studied period, biliary strictures resolved in 71.4% of the FCSEMS group vs 33.3% of the PS group (P = 0.03). Using multiple plastic stents instead of a single plastic stent didn’t seem to improve biliary stricture resolution rate. Two patients (2.4%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, both patients had a native papilla and underwent FCSEMS placement with sphincterotomy and without pancreatic duct manipulation (P = 0.06). There was no difference between the stents used in terms of post-procedural cholangitis or stent migration rates. Conclusion: FCSEMS outperformed PS with respect to the anastomotic biliary stricture resolution rate over 3 endo-therapy sessions. Post-ERCP pancreatitis, although uncommon, occurred exclusively in the FCSEMS group.

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.