Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement and Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: an Updated Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal J Gastroenterol

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2013 Apr 25

PMID 23612857

Citations 59

Authors

Takero Mazaki

Kazunari Mado

Hideki Masuda

Motomi Shiono

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Aim: Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. Previous meta-analyses show that prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement after ERCP is beneficial for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). However, the results of these meta-analyses are controversial due to the limited sample size of the eligible studies, in which six additional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not included. Our aim is, therefore, to update the current meta-analyses regarding PS placement for prevention of PEP.

Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis to identify RCTs comparing PS placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP.

Results: Fourteen studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Of the 1,541 patients, 760 patients received a PS and 781 patients were allocated to the control group. PS placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction of PEP [relative risk (RR) 0.39; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.53; P < 0.001]. Subgroup analysis stratified according to the severity of PEP showed that a PS was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.45; 95 % CI 0.32-0.62; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.26; 95 %CI 0.09-0.76; P = 0.01). In addition, subgroup analysis performed according to patient selection demonstrated that PS placement was effective for both high-risk and mixed case groups.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that PS placement prevented PEP after ERCP as compared with no PS placement. We therefore recommend PS placement after ERCP for the prevention of PEP.

Citing Articles

Ascending colon perforation by a migrated pancreatic spontaneous dislodgment stent: a case report.

Okumura M, Koga H, Eguchi H, Sato N, Utsunomiya R, Wakahara Y Clin J Gastroenterol. 2025; .

PMID: 39953361 DOI: 10.1007/s12328-025-02101-6.

High-volume lactated Ringer's solution with human albumin versus standard-volume infusion as a prophylactic treatment for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: randomized clinical trial.

Shatsnimitkul E, Laopeamthong I, Tansawet A, Techapongsatorn S, Kasetsermwiriya W, Leungon P BJS Open. 2025; 9(1.

PMID: 39836543 PMC: 11749547. DOI: 10.1093/bjsopen/zrae149.

A new preprocedural predictive risk model for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: The SuPER model.

Sugimoto M, Takagi T, Suzuki T, Shimizu H, Shibukawa G, Nakajima Y Elife. 2025; 13.

PMID: 39819489 PMC: 11741517. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.101604.

Pancreatic stent improves the success rate of needle-knife papillotomy in patients with difficult biliary cannulation.

Lee M, Lin C, Wu C, Tsou Y, Sung K, Wang S World J Gastroenterol. 2025; 31(1):97240.

PMID: 39777249 PMC: 11684180. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i1.97240.

Mitigating Postoperative Fistula Risks in Laparoscopic Pancreatic Enucleation: A Retrospective Study.

Li L, Li X, Liu K, Wu W, Li M, Liu Y Ann Surg Oncol. 2024; 32(3):1887-1895.

PMID: 39710806 PMC: 11811477. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16702-x.

References

Ioannidis J, Trikalinos T . The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ. 2007; 176(8):1091-6. PMC: 1839799. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.060410. View

Mehta S, Pavone E, Barkun J, Bouchard S, Barkun A . Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy. 1998; 30(5):457-63. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1001308. View

Elmunzer B, Scheiman J, Lehman G, Chak A, Mosler P, Higgins P . A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(15):1414-22. PMC: 3339271. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1111103. View

Schulz K, Chalmers I, Hayes R, Altman D . Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273(5):408-12. DOI: 10.1001/jama.273.5.408. View

Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, Wong R, Sivak Jr M, Agrawal D . Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004; 60(4):544-50. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02013-9. View

Lee T, Moon J, Choi H, Han S, Cheon Y, Cho Y . Prophylactic temporary 3F pancreatic duct stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with a difficult biliary cannulation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76(3):578-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.001. View

Vandervoort J, Soetikno R, Tham T, Wong R, Ferrari Jr A, Montes H . Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 56(5):652-6. DOI: 10.1067/mge.2002.129086. View

Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni P . Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2003; 35(10):830-4. DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-42614. View

Choi C, Kang D, Kim G, Eum J, Lee S, Song G . Nafamostat mesylate in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis and risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 69(4):e11-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.046. View

10.

Mazaki T, Masuda H, Takayama T . Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2010; 42(10):842-53. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255781. View

11.

Sofuni A, Maguchi H, Itoi T, Katanuma A, Hisai H, Niido T . Prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis by an endoscopic pancreatic spontaneous dislodgement stent. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5(11):1339-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.07.008. View

12.

DerSimonian R, Laird N . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7(3):177-88. DOI: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2. View

13.

Tarnasky P, Palesch Y, Cunningham J, Mauldin P, Cotton P, Hawes R . Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology. 1998; 115(6):1518-24. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70031-9. View

14.

Harewood G, Pochron N, Gostout C . Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005; 62(3):367-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.04.020. View

15.

Banks P, Bollen T, Dervenis C, Gooszen H, Johnson C, Sarr M . Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut. 2012; 62(1):102-11. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302779. View

16.

Choudhary A, Bechtold M, Arif M, Szary N, Puli S, Othman M . Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 73(2):275-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039. View

17.

Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96(2):417-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03594.x. View

18.

Rudin D, Kiss A, Wetz R, Sottile V . Somatostatin and gabexate for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis prevention: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 22(7):977-83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.04928.x. View

19.

Cha S, Leung W, Lehman G, Watkins J, McHenry L, Fogel E . Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy-associated pancreatitis? A randomized, prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 77(2):209-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.022. View

20.

Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M . The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999; 282(11):1054-60. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054. View