Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:138
作者
Mazaki, T. [1 ]
Masuda, H. [1 ]
Takayama, T. [1 ]
机构
[1] Nihon Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Digest Surg,Nerima ku, Tokyo 1790072, Japan
关键词
ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; RISK-FACTORS; BILE-DUCT; BILIARY SPHINCTEROTOMY; PREVENTS PANCREATITIS; THERAPEUTIC ERCP; COMPLICATIONS; CANNULATION; QUALITY; REDUCE;
D O I
10.1055/s-0030-1255781
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and study aims: Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent after ERCP can help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We aimed to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis regarding pancreatic stent placement for prevention of PEP and review the immediate adverse events associated with pancreatic stent placement. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considering pancreatic stent placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PEP. We also did a meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies that reported on immediate adverse events, in order to estimate their incidence. Results: Eight studies, involving 680 patients, were included in the meta-analysis; 336 patients had pancreatic stent placement, and 344 patients formed the control group. Pancreatic stent placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction in PEP (relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.52; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis with stratification according to PEP severity showed that pancreatic stenting was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.60; P < 0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06-0.91; P = 0.04). Subgroup analysis according to patient selection demonstrated that pancreatic stenting was effective for both high risk and mixed-case groups. Weighted pooled estimates from between one and 17 studies for incidences of immediate adverse events were: overall complications 4.4%; any infection 3.0%; bleeding 2.5%; cholangitis or cholecystitis 3.1%; necrosis 0.4%; pancreatic stent migration 4.9% and occlusion 7.9%; perforation 0.8%; pseudocysts 3.0%; and retroperitoneal perforation 1.2%. Conclusions: The meta-analysis shows that pancreatic stent placement after ERCP reduces the risk of PEP.
引用
收藏
页码:842 / 853
页数:12
相关论文
共 57 条
[1]  
Aizawa T, 2001, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V54, P209, DOI 10.1067/mge.2001.115730
[2]   Pancreatic duct stents in the prophylaxis of pancreatic damage after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic analysis of benefits and associated risks [J].
Andriulli, Angelo ;
Forlano, Rosario ;
Napolitano, Grazia ;
Conoscitore, Pasquale ;
Caruso, Nazario ;
Pilotto, Alberto ;
Di Sebastiano, Pier Luigi ;
Leandro, Gioacchino .
DIGESTION, 2007, 75 (2-3) :156-163
[3]   Prophylactic administration of somatostatin or gabexate does not prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: an updated meta-analysis [J].
Andriulli, Angelo ;
Leandro, Gioacchino ;
Federici, Telemaco ;
Ippolito, Antonio ;
Forlano, Rosario ;
Iacobellis, Angelo ;
Annese, Vito .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2007, 65 (04) :624-632
[4]  
[Anonymous], GASTROINTEST ENDOSC
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2002, METHODS METAANALYSIS
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2001, SYSTEMATIC REV HLTH, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470693926
[7]  
[Anonymous], GASTROINTEST ENDOSC
[8]  
[Anonymous], GASTROINTEST ENDOSC
[9]  
[Anonymous], GASTROINTEST ENDOSC
[10]  
[Anonymous], GUT S7