Download PDF
Endoscopy 2014; 46(07): 573-580
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1365701
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

5-Fr vs. 3-Fr pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Elham Afghani   *
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Venkata S. Akshintala   *
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Mouen A. Khashab
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Joanna K. Law
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Susan M. Hutfless
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Katherine J. Kim
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Anne Marie Lennon
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Anthony N. Kalloo
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
,
Vikesh K. Singh
Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 07 October 2013

accepted after revision 11 March 2014

Publication Date:
15 May 2014 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de Afghani E et al., pp. 573Endoscopy 2014; 46(07): 732-733
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377777

Background and study aims: Placement of a pancreatic stent is recommended for the prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatitis (ERCP) among high-risk patients. However, it is not known whether there is a particular feature of the pancreatic stent that is associated with a lower incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to examine whether a particular feature of pancreatic stents is associated with lower incidence of PEP.

Patients and methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of pancreatic stents in the prevention of PEP from September 1993 to June 2013. Trials that reported the incidence of PEP in high-risk patients randomized to one vs. another type of pancreatic stent or vs. no stent at all were included in the analysis.

Results: Among the 1377 citations identified from the database searches, 6 RCTs involving 561 patients were included. Three RCTs evaluated 5-Fr straight, flanged pancreatic stents, two RCTs evaluated 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents, and three RCTs evaluated 3-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents. The probability of being ranked the best was 50.3 % (SD = 0.5, Markov chain error = 0.003) for 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged pancreatic stents, 46.5 % for 5-Fr straight, flanged stents, and 3.1 % for 3-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged stents.

Conclusion: The 5-Fr pancreatic stent is superior to the 3-Fr pancreatic stent for the prevention of PEP in high-risk patients. The 5-Fr single-pigtail, unflanged pancreatic stent and 5-Fr straight, flanged pancreatic stent performed similarly and both performed better than the 3-Fr pancreatic stent in preventing PEP, suggesting that stent diameter is more important for the prevention of PEP than type of stent or the presence of flanges.

* These authors contributed equally to this work.


Appendix e1

 

  • References

  • 1 Freeman ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 1354-1365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Freeman ML. Role of pancreatic stents in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2004; 5: 322-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Aizawa T, Ueno N. Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT et al. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998; 115: 1518-1524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Andriulli A, Forlano R, Napolitano G et al. Pancreatic duct stents in the prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks. Digestion 2007; 75: 156-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S et al. Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 830-834
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G et al. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 544-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mazaki T, Masuda H, Takayama T. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 842-853
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 275-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sofuni A, Maguchi H, Itoi T et al. Prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by an endoscopic pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 1339-1346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, , eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org (Accessed: 18 Jan 2002)
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Higgins JPT, Green S , eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/training/cochrane-handbook (Accessed: 18 January 18 2012)
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 01/2014 Available at: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC , eds. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, , eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 845-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ades AE, Welton N, Lu G. Mixed treatment comparisons. Available from: http://www.bris.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/mpes/mtc/ (Acessed: 18 Jan 2012)
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ntzoufras I. Bayesian modeling using WinBUGS. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 163-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jaynes ET. Confidence Intervals vs Bayesian Intervals. In: Harper WL, Hooker CA, , editors. Foundations of probability theory, statistical inference, and statistical theories of science. Dordrecht: Reidel; 1976: 175
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lee TH, Park DH, Lee SS et al. Outcomes of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting for symptomatic gallbladder diseases: a multicenter prospective follow-up study. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 702-708
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF et al. Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 291-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Harewood GC, Pochron NL, Gostout CJ. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 367-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pan XP, Dang T, Meng XM et al. Clinical study on the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic duct stenting. Cell Biochem Biophys 2011; 61: 473-479
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Chahal P, Tarnasky PR, Petersen BT et al. Short 5Fr vs long 3Fr pancreatic stents in patients at risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 834-839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Zolotarevsky E, Fehmi SM, Anderson MA et al. Prophylactic 5-Fr pancreatic duct stents are superior to 3-Fr stents: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 325-330
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pezzilli R, Romboli E, Campana D et al. Mechanisms involved in the onset of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2002; 3: 162-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Akashi R, Kiyozumi T, Tanaka T et al. Mechanism of pancreatitis caused by ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 50-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Zhou W, Li Y, Zhang Q et al. Risk factors for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a retrospective analysis of 7,168 cases. Pancreatology 2011; 11: 399-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Buscaglia JM, Simons BW, Prosser BJ et al. Severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis directly proportional to the invasiveness of endoscopic intervention: a pilot study in a canine model. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 506-512
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Sherman S, Lehman GA. ERCP- and endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis. Pancreas 1991; 6: 350-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mazaki T, Mado K, Masuda H et al. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 343-355
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Dumonceau JM, Rigaux J, Kahaleh M et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a practice survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 934-9, 939.e1-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry L et al. Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 2: 322-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Tarnasky PR. Mechanical prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic stents: results, techniques, and indications. JOP 2003; 4: 58-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Freeman ML, Overby C, Qi D. Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Kawaguchi Y, Ogawa M, Omata F et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stenting to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 1635-1641
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tsuchiya T, Itoi T, Sofuni A et al. Temporary pancreatic stent to prevent post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a preliminary, single-center, randomized controlled trial. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007; 14: 302-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar