Evaluation of post-ERCP pancreatitis after biliary stenting with self-expandable metal stents vs. plastic stents in benign and malignant obstructions.

Background and study aims There are conflicting data regarding the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) with self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) compared to polyethylene stents (PS) in malignant biliary obstructions and limited data related to benign obstructions. Patients and methods A retrospective cohort study was performed of 1136 patients who underwent ERCP for biliary obstruction and received SEMS or PS at a tertiary-care medical center between January 2011 and October 2016. We evaluated the association between stent type (SEMS vs PS) and PEP in malignant and benign biliary obstructions. Results Among the 1136 patients included in our study, 399 had SEMS placed and 737 had PS placed. Patients with PS were more likely to have pancreatic duct cannulation, pancreatic duct stent placement, double guidewire technique, sphincterotomy and sphincteroplasty as compared to the SEMS group. On multivariate analysis, PEP rates were higher in the SEMS group (8.0 %) versus the PS group (4.8 %) (OR 2.27 [CI, 1.22, 4.24]) for all obstructions. For malignant obstructions, PEP rates were 7.8 % and 6.6 % for SEMS and plastic stents, respectively (OR 1.54 [CI, 0.72, 3.30]). For benign obstructions the PEP rate was higher in the SEMS group (8.8 %) compared to the PS group (4.2 %) (OR 3.67 [CI, 1.50, 8.97]). No significant differences between PEP severity were identified based on stent type when stratified based on benign and malignant. Conclusions PEP rates were higher when SEMS were used for benign obstruction as compared to PS. For malignant obstruction, no difference was identified in PEP rates with use of SEMS vs PS.

External validation of the IMPROVE-DD risk assessment model for venous thromboembolism among inpatients with COVID-19.

There is a need to discriminate which COVID-19 inpatients are at higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) to inform prophylaxis strategies. The IMPROVE-DD VTE risk assessment model (RAM) has previously demonstrated good discrimination in non-COVID populations. We aimed to externally validate the IMPROVE-DD VTE RAM in medical patients hospitalized with COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the IMPROVE-DD VTE RAM in adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to one of thirteen Northwell Health hospitals in the New York metropolitan area between March 1, 2020 and April 27, 2020. VTE was defined as new-onset symptomatic deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. To assess the predictive value of the RAM, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Of 9407 patients who met study criteria, 274 patients developed VTE with a prevalence of 2.91%. The VTE rate was 0.41% for IMPROVE-DD score 0-1 (low risk), 1.21% for score 2-3 (moderate risk), and 5.30% for score ≥ 4 (high risk). Approximately 45.7% of patients were classified as high VTE risk, 33.3% moderate risk, and 21.0% low risk. Discrimination of low versus moderate-high VTE risk demonstrated sensitivity 0.971, specificity 0.215, PPV 0.036, and NPV 0.996. ROC AUC was 0.703. In this external validation study, the IMPROVE-DD VTE RAM demonstrated very good discrimination to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at low, moderate, and high VTE risk.