Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset
B. Joseph Elmunzer,Jingwen Zhang,Gregory A. Coté,Steven A. Edmundowicz,Sachin Wani,Raj Shah,Ji Young Bang,Shyam Varadarajulu,Vikesh K. Singh,Mouen Khashab,Richard S. Kwon,James M. Scheiman,Field F. Willingham,Steven A. Keilin,Georgios I. Papachristou,Amitabh Chak,Adam Slivka,Daniel Mullady,Vladimir Kushnir,James Buxbaum,Rajesh Keswani,Timothy B. Gardner,Nauzer Forbes,Amit Rastogi,Andrew Ross,Joanna Law,Patrick Yachimski,Yen-I Chen,Alan Barkun,Zachary L. Smith,Jose Serrano,Bret Petersen,Andrew Y. Wang,John R. Saltzman,Rebecca L. Spitzer,Collins Ordiah,Cathie Spino,Lydia D. Foster,Valerie Durkalski-Mauldin,on-behalf-of the SVI Study Group.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003052
2024-08-29
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Abstract:Background: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. Methods: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Results: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). Conclusions: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.
gastroenterology & hepatology