umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: a nationwide, register-based study
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: United European Gastroenterology journal, ISSN 2050-6406, E-ISSN 2050-6414, Vol. 5, no 1, 111-118 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background and objectives: The role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (PS) in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) has yet to be determined. Most previous studies show beneficial effects in reducing PEP when prophylactic pancreatic stents are used, especially in high-risk ERCP procedures. The present study aimed to address the use of PS in a nationwide register-based study in which the primary outcome was the prophylactic effect of PS in reducing PEP.

Methods: All ERCP-procedures registered in the nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) between 2006 and 2014 were studied. The primary outcome was PEP but we also studied other peri- and postoperative complication rates.

Results: Data from 43,595 ERCP procedures were analyzed. In the subgroup of patients who received PS with a total diameter ≤ 5 Fr, the risk of PEP increased nearly four times compared to those who received PS with a total diameter of >5 Fr (OR 3.58; 95% CI 1.40–11.07). Furthermore, patients who received PS of >5 Fr and >5 cm had a significantly lower pancreatitis frequency compared to those with shorter stents of the same diameter (1.39% vs 15.79%; p = 0.0033).

Conclusions: PS with a diameter of >5 Fr and a length of >5 cm seems to have a better protective effect against PEP, compared to shorter and thinner stents. However, in the present version of GallRiks it is not possible to differentiate the exact type of pancreatic stent (apart from material, length and diameter) that has been introduced, so our conclusion must be interpreted with caution.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Sage Publications, 2017. Vol. 5, no 1, 111-118 p.
Keyword [en]
ERCP, pancreatic stents, pancreatitis, complication rates, prophylaxis
National Category
Surgery
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-132469DOI: 10.1177/2050640616645434ISI: 000394842000014PubMedID: 28405329OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-132469DiVA: diva2:1081748
Available from: 2017-03-15 Created: 2017-03-15 Last updated: 2017-10-11Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Enochsson, Lars
In the same journal
United European Gastroenterology journal
Surgery

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 549 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf