Prophylactic 5-Fr pancreatic duct stents are superior to 3-Fr stents: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Temporary prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting effectively reduces post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients, but the optimal stent remains unclear. We compared rate of spontaneous passage, and technical difficulty of placement for 3-Fr and 5-Fr stents.

Methods: A randomized controlled trial at a single academic medical center. Patients deemed high risk for PEP randomly received 5-Fr or 3-Fr pancreatic duct stents. Primary outcome was spontaneous stent passage by 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes were ease and time for stent placement, and number of guide wires required for the entire procedure.

Results: Patients (69 female [89 %]; mean age 44.9 years, standard deviation [SD] 16.8) were randomly assigned to receive 5-Fr (n = 38) and 3-Fr (n = 40) stents. Indications for stenting were similar. Seven patients in the 3-Fr group actually received a 5-Fr stent, and two in the 5-Fr group had a 3-Fr stent. Spontaneous passage or non-passage was confirmed in 64 (83 %). No statistically significant difference in spontaneous passage rates was seen (5-Fr group, 68.4 %; 3-Fr group 75.0 %; P = 0.617). Non-passage rates were 10.5 % (5-Fr group) and 10.0 % (3-Fr group) (P = 1.00). The study was stopped after a futility analysis for the primary end point. Placement of 5-Fr stents was rated easier, at a mean score of 1.8 (5-Fr) vs. 3.4 (3-Fr), P < 0.001, with a trend towards being faster, 9.2 vs. 11.1 minutes (P = 0.355). Fewer guide wires were required for 5-Fr stent placement, 1.5 vs. 1.9 (P = 0.002). PEP rates did not differ (P = 0.519).

Conclusion: Placement of 5-Fr compared to 3-Fr pancreatic duct stents for PEP prophylaxis is easier, faster, and requires fewer wires. No statistically significant difference in spontaneous passage was found between the two sizes.

References

• 1 Cotton P B, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al . Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 383-393
• 2 Fazel A, Quadri A, Catalano M F. et al . Does a pancreatic duct stent prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 291-294
• 3 Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G. et al . Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 544-550
• 4 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
• 5 Smithline A, Silverman W, Rogers D. et al . Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;  39 652-657
• 6 Tarnasky P R, Palesch Y Y, Cunningham J T. et al . Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.  Gastroenterology. 1998;  115 1518-1524
• 7 Das A, Singh P, Sivak Jr. M V, Chak A. Pancreatic-stent placement for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a cost-effectiveness analysis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;  65 960-968
• 8 Smith M T, Sherman S, Ikenberry S O. et al . Alterations in pancreatic ductal morphology following polyethylene pancreatic stent therapy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 268-275
• 9 Rashdan A, Fogel E L, McHenry Jr. L. et al . Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;  2 322-329
• 10 Chahal P, Tarnasky P R, Petersen B T. 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
• 11 Freeman M L, Overby C, Qi D. Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 8-14
• 12 Komorita S S. Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale.  J Soc Psychol. 1963;  61 327-334
• 13 Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes.  Arch Psychol. 1932;  140 1-55
• 14 Mallery J S, Baron T H, Dominitz J A. et al . Complications of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 633-638
• 15 Cotton P B, Vennes J, Geenen J E. et al . Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 383-393
• 16 Spiegelhalter D J, Freedman L S, Blackburn P R. Monitoring clinical trials: conditional or predictive power?.  Control Clin Trials. 1986;  7 8-17
• 17 Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni P A. Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 830-834
• 18 Aronson N, Flamm C R, Bohn R L. et al . Evidence-based assessment: patient, procedure, or operator factors associated with ERCP complications.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 (Suppl. 6) S294-S302
• 19 Harewood G C, Pochron N L, Gostout C J. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 367-370
• 20 Derfus G A, Hogan W J. Effects of endoscopic pancreatic duct stent placement on pancreatic ductal morphology [abstract].  Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;  36 (206A)