Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prophylactic Pancreatic Stents: Does Size Matter? A Comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr Stents in Reference to Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Migration Rate

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Aims

The ideal pancreatic stent to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. The aim of our study was to assess the relative benefit of 4-Fr versus 5-Fr stents in a population at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the relative frequency of spontaneous migration.

Patients and Methods

All patients with prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS) from 2002 to 2009 were reviewed. Patients were classified into two groups according to stent size and compared based on outcome; spontaneous migration or endoscopic removal.

Results

A total of 346 PPS were placed in 308 patients (224 women, 84 men). The average age was 48.9 years. The most common indication for PPS was sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Needle knife papillotomy was the most common procedure performed. Forty-seven patients had PEP, 4 Fr (14.6%) and 5 Fr (12.9%), with only one case of severe pancreatitis. Factors associated with higher rates PEP were younger age and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Complete follow-up was not available in 37 patients. Spontaneous migration was demonstrated in 115 of the 4 Fr (95.8%) and 134 of the 5 Fr (68.7%). The remaining 66 (five from the 4 Fr and 61 from the 5 Fr), were removed by endoscopy. The mean delay to demonstrate spontaneous migration was 34.2 days.

Conclusions

PPS in high-risk patients reduced the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and nearly eliminated severe pancreatitis. No significant difference between the 4 Fr and 5 Fr in reduction of post-ERCP pancreatitis was observed. However, spontaneous migration was more frequent with the 4-Fr stent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CT scan:

Computed tomography scanner

EGD:

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

ERCP:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

EUS:

Endoscopic ultrasonography

IL:

Interleukin

KUB:

Plain abdominal radiography

PD:

Pancreatic duct

PPS:

Prophylactic pancreatic stent

SOD:

Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction

References

  1. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–918.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, et al. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:544–550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:425–434.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, Mauldin PD, Cotton PB, Hawes RH. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:1518–1524.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano MF, Meyerson SM, Geenen JE. Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:291–294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Brackbill S, Scott Y, Schoenfeld P, Elta G. A survey of physician practices on prophylactic pancreatic stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:45–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry L Jr, Sherman S, Temkit M, Lehman GA. Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:322–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lawrence C, Cotton PB, Romagnuolo J, Payne KM, Rawls E, Hawes RH. Small prophylactic pancreatic duct stents: an assessment of spontaneous passage and stent-induced ductal abnormalities. Endoscopy. 2007;39:1082–1085.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cotton PB, Lehman GA, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383–393.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:139–147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Neuhaus H. Therapeutic pancreatic endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2002;34:54–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kingsnorth A. Role of cytokines and their inhibitors in acute pancreatitis. Gut. 1997;40:1–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Cavallini G, Tittobello A, Frulloni L, Masci E, Mariana A, Di Francesco V. Gabexate for the prevention of pancreatic damage related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:919–923.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray WR. Reducing the incidence and severity of post ERCP pancreatitis. Scand J Surg. 2005;94:112–116.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Akashi R, Kiyozumi T, Tanaka T, Sakurai K, Oda Y, Sagara K. Mechanism of pancreatitis caused by ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:50–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman ML. Adverse outcomes of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:S273–S282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hookey LC, Rio Tinto R, Delhaye M, Baize M, Le Moine O, Deviere J. Risk factors for pancreatitis after pancreatic sphincterotomy: a review of 572 cases. Endoscopy. 2006;38:670–676.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;62:367–370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tarnasky PR. Mechanical prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis by pancreatic stents: Results, techniques, and indications. J Pancreas (Online). 2003;4:58–67.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aizawa T, Ueno N. Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:209–213.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, Sherman S, Lehman GA. Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone. Endoscopy. 2002;34:280–285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:845–864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:417–423.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cohen S, Bacon BR, Berlin JA, et al. National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: ERCP for diagnosis and therapy, January 14–16, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:803–809.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni PA. Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2003;35:830–834.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chahal P, Tarnasky P, Peterson B, et al. Short 5Fr vs. long 3Fr pancreatic stents in patients at risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:834–839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Freeman ML. Role of pancreatic stents in prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Pancreas (online). 2004;5:322–327.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dumonceau JM, Rigaux J, Kahaleh M, Gomez CM, Vandermeeren A, Deviere J. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a practice survey. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:934–939.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Elton E, Howell DA, Parsons WG, et al. Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy: indications, outcomes, and a safe stentless technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:240–249.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Freeman M. Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:1354–1365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sherman S, Hawes RH, Savides TJ, et al. Stent-induced pancreatic ductal and parenchymal changes: correlation of endoscopic ultrasound with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:276–282.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bakman YG, Safdar K, Freeman ML. Significant clinical implications of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in previously normal pancreatic ducts. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1095–1098.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Franca Benedicty Barton, MS, for her statistical analysis and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC, 20007, USA

    Albert Pahk, Vijay Poreddy, Joan Smith & Firas Al-Kawas

  2. Hopital Erasme, Route de Lennik 808, 1070, Brussels, Belgium

    Johanne Rigaux

Authors
  1. Albert Pahk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Johanne Rigaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vijay Poreddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joan Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Firas Al-Kawas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Firas Al-Kawas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pahk, A., Rigaux, J., Poreddy, V. et al. Prophylactic Pancreatic Stents: Does Size Matter? A Comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr Stents in Reference to Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Migration Rate. Dig Dis Sci 56, 3058–3064 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-011-1695-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-011-1695-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation