MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052

Медицинская библиотека · The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024

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.

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, SVI Study Group*

Equivalence TrialСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

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.

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).

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).

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.

Для цитирования: 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, SVI Study Group*. 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.. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2024. DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.