Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.
Elmunzer, B Joseph; Zhang, Jingwen; Coté, Gregory A; Edmundowicz, Steven A; Wani, Sachin; Shah, Raj; Bang, Ji Young; Varadarajulu, Shyam; Singh, Vikesh K; Khashab, Mouen; Kwon, Richard S; Scheiman, James M; Willingham, Field F; Keilin, Steven A; Papachristou, Georgios I; Chak, Amitabh; Slivka, Adam; Mullady, Daniel; Kushnir, Vladimir; Buxbaum, James; Keswani, Rajesh; Gardner, Timothy B; Forbes, Nauzer; Rastogi, Amit; Ross, Andrew; Law, Joanna; Yachimski, Patrick; Chen, Yen-I; Barkun, Alan; Smith, Zachary L; Serrano, Jose; Petersen, Bret; Wang, Andrew Y; Saltzman, John R; Spitzer, Rebecca L; Ordiah, Collins; Spino, Cathie; Foster, Lydia D; Durkalski-Mauldin, Valerie.
Affiliation
  • Elmunzer BJ; Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
  • Zhang J; Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
  • Coté GA; Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
  • Edmundowicz SA; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Wani S; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Shah R; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
  • Bang JY; Orlando Health Digestive Health Institute, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Varadarajulu S; Orlando Health Digestive Health Institute, Orlando Health, Orlando, Florida, USA.
  • Singh VK; Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Khashab M; Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
  • Kwon RS; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  • Scheiman JM; Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  • Willingham FF; Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Keilin SA; Division of Digestive Diseases, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
  • Papachristou GI; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA.
  • Chak A; Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
  • Slivka A; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Mullady D; Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
  • Kushnir V; Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, USA.
  • Buxbaum J; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
  • Keswani R; Division of Gastroenterology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
  • Gardner TB; Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Health, Lebanon, NH, USA.
  • Forbes N; Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
  • Rastogi A; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
  • Ross A; Division of Gastroenterology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  • Law J; Division of Gastroenterology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.
  • Yachimski P; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
  • Chen YI; Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Barkun A; Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  • Smith ZL; Division of Gastroenterology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA.
  • Serrano J; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
  • Petersen B; Department of Gastroenterology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
  • Wang AY; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
  • Saltzman JR; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Spitzer RL; Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
  • Ordiah C; Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
  • Spino C; Department of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
  • Foster LD; Data Coordination Unit, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
  • Durkalski-Mauldin V; Data Coordination Unit, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol ; 2024 Aug 27.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39207308
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

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.

METHODS:

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).

RESULTS:

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).

CONCLUSIONS:

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.

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Year: 2024 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States