TY - JOUR
T1 - Technical Factors Associated With the Benefit of Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement During High-Risk Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography
T2 - A Secondary Analysis of the SVI Trial Data Set
AU - behalf of the SVI Study Group
AU - Elmunzer, B. Joseph
AU - Zhang, Jingwen
AU - Coté, Gregory A.
AU - Edmundowicz, Steven A.
AU - Wani, Sachin
AU - Shah, Raj
AU - Bang, Ji Young
AU - Varadarajulu, Shyam
AU - Singh, Vikesh K.
AU - Khashab, Mouen
AU - Kwon, Richard S.
AU - Scheiman, James M.
AU - Willingham, Field F.
AU - Keilin, Steven A.
AU - Papachristou, Georgios I.
AU - Chak, Amitabh
AU - Slivka, Adam
AU - Mullady, Daniel
AU - Kushnir, Vladimir
AU - Buxbaum, James
AU - Keswani, Rajesh
AU - Gardner, Timothy B.
AU - Forbes, Nauzer
AU - Rastogi, Amit
AU - Ross, Andrew
AU - Law, Joanna
AU - Yachimski, Patrick
AU - Chen, Yen I.
AU - Barkun, Alan
AU - Smith, Zachary L.
AU - Serrano, Jose
AU - Petersen, Bret
AU - Wang, Andrew Y.
AU - Saltzman, John R.
AU - Spitzer, Rebecca L.
AU - Ordiah, Collins
AU - Spino, Cathie
AU - Foster, Lydia D.
AU - Durkalski-Mauldin, Valerie
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.
PY - 2025/4/1
Y1 - 2025/4/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
KW - post-ERCP pancreatitis
KW - prophylactic pancreatic stent placement
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85202550525
U2 - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052
DO - 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052
M3 - Article
C2 - 39207308
AN - SCOPUS:85202550525
SN - 0002-9270
VL - 120
SP - 811
EP - 815
JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 4
ER -