Back to Search Start Over

Technical Factors Associated With the Benefit of Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement During High-Risk Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Secondary Analysis of the SVI Trial Data Set.

Authors :
Elmunzer BJ
Zhang J
Coté GA
Edmundowicz SA
Wani S
Shah R
Bang JY
Varadarajulu S
Singh VK
Khashab M
Kwon RS
Scheiman JM
Willingham FF
Keilin SA
Papachristou GI
Chak A
Slivka A
Mullady D
Kushnir V
Buxbaum J
Keswani R
Gardner TB
Forbes N
Rastogi A
Ross A
Law J
Yachimski P
Chen YI
Barkun A
Smith ZL
Serrano J
Petersen B
Wang AY
Saltzman JR
Spitzer RL
Ordiah C
Spino C
Foster LD
Durkalski-Mauldin V
Source :
The American journal of gastroenterology [Am J Gastroenterol] 2024 Aug 27. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Aug 27.
Publication Year :
2024
Publisher :
Ahead of Print

Abstract

Introduction: 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.<br />Methods: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).<br />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; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49-1.41).<br />Discussion: 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 PSP 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.<br /> (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1572-0241
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
The American journal of gastroenterology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
39207308
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052