The safety and utility of prophylactic pancreatic duct stents in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an analysis of practice in a single UK tertiary referral center.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
The use of temporary prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stents in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in high-risk patients has been shown to be effective in multiple trials. However, there are limited data on the clinical implications of PD stents and their impact on practice outside of the trial setting.
METHODS
The utility of prophylactic pancreatic stenting was evaluated in a retrospective analysis of 1,000 consecutive ERCPs performed in a single tertiary referral pancreatobiliary center over a 24-month period, based upon a predetermined protocol to identify patients at high risk of postprocedure pancreatitis.
RESULTS
One thousand procedures performed in 688 patients were studied. Sixty-one patients were considered for stent placement and stents were successfully placed in 58 cases. The overall rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis in our study population was 3.6%. The rate of pancreatitis in the stented patients was considered high at 22.4%, but the majority (69%) were classified as mild and there were no reported severe episodes. This compares to pancreatitis in the nonstented group, in whom the majority (73.9%) experienced either moderate or severe episodes.
CONCLUSION
A strategy of prophylactic PD stents in this study has eliminated severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. However, the high pancreatitis rate in stented patients may represent the cost to achieve this, while stent type and size employed are likely contributing factors. To maximize the benefits of PD stenting, there is a need to identify and treat all those considered at high risk.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
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.