Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2014 Feb;49(2):343-55.
doi: 10.1007/s00535-013-0806-1. Epub 2013 Apr 24.

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis

Takero Mazaki et al. J Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. CMAJ. 2007 Apr 10;176(8):1091-6 - PubMed
    1. Endoscopy. 1998 Jun;30(5):457-63 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1414-22 - PubMed
    1. JAMA. 1995 Feb 1;273(5):408-12 - PubMed
    1. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Oct;60(4):544-50 - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources