Post-ERCP pancreatitis rates do not differ between needle-knife and pull-type pancreatic sphincterotomy techniques: a multiendoscopist 13-year experience.
ABSTRACT Pancreatic sphincterotomy is one of several factors associated with an increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). The needle-knife pancreatic sphincterotomy technique (NKS) is purported to result in less-frequent post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with a standard pull-type sphincterotomy (PTS).
Our purpose was to analyze the experience with both endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy (EPS) techniques with respect to post-ERCP pancreatitis at a single tertiary-level referral center.
Tertiary-care medical center (Charleston, South Carolina).
Patients without chronic pancreatitis and with normal retrograde pancreatogram who underwent EPS between 1994 and 2007 were identified. Patients were excluded for the following reasons: pancreatic stent not placed, both sphincterotomy techniques used, any balloon dilation of the ampullary orifice, precut or access papillotomy, pancreas divisum.
A total of 481 patients were identified and underwent 510 ERCPs. Indications for ERCP were recurrent pancreatic-type pain (n = 353) or pancreatitis (n = 157). NKS was used for 395 of 510 (77.5%) cases versus 115 of 510 (22.5%) in which PTS was used. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was no different between NKS (25/395, 6.4%) and PTS (9/115, 7.8%). Most cases were mild pancreatitis; a single episode of severe PEP occurred in each group.
The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis does not differ between EPS techniques when performed at a high-volume pancreaticobiliary referral center when using routine prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Obstruction of the main pancreatic duct with upstream hypertension and dilation is a cause of pain in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Pancreatic ductal drainage can be achieved endoscopically by intraductal stone removal after endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy and/or by insertion of a pancreatic stent. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy may be needed whenever stones cannot be removed by endoscopic procedures. We present our results in 35 patients treated with a combined endoscopic-extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy approach with at least 6 months of follow-up. Thirty-five patients with severe chronic pancreatitis were treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for endoscopically unretrievable obstructive stones. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was performed with an electromagnetic lithotriptor in 29 patients and an electrohydraulic lithotriptor in 6. The procedures were well tolerated by the majority of patients. Fragmentation of stones was obtained in all cases while complete clearance and decompression of pancreatic duct were obtained in 26 of 35 (74.3%) and in 30 of 35 (85.7%) cases, respectively. There was no mortality related to the procedure. Morbidity was observed in 8 of 35 patients (22.8%). Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for endoscopically unretrievable pancreatic stones in the main pancreatic duct. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy should be considered complementary and not an alternative to endoscopic drainage. Combined with endoscopy, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy may increase the success rate of nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic pancreatitis.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/1997; 46(3):231-6. · 5.21 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It has been suggested that the use of pure-cut electrosurgical current for endoscopic sphincterotomy may reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to determine whether pure-cut current reduces the risk of pancreatitis compared with blend current. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo sphincterotomy over a non-conductive guidewire with 30 W/sec pure-cut current or 30 W/sec blend-2 current by a blinded endoscopist. Serum amylase and lipase levels were determined 1 day before and within 24 hours after ERCP. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was the primary outcome of interest. Secondary outcomes were as follows: severity of immediate bleeding, as graded by a 3-point scale from 1 (no bleeding) to 3 (injection or balloon tamponade therapy required to stop bleeding) and evidence of delayed bleeding 24 hours after ERCP. Analyses were performed in intention-to-treat fashion. A total of 246 patients were randomized (116 pure-cut current, 130 blend current). There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The overall frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was 6.9%, with no significant difference in frequency between treatment arms (pure cut, 7.8% vs. blend, 6.1%; p = 0.62). The difference in rates of pancreatitis between the two groups was 1.7%: 95% CI[-4.8%, 8.2%]. Six patients (2.4%) had delayed bleeding after ERCP, of which two required transfusion. There was a significant increase in minor bleeding episodes (grade 2) in the pure-cut group (p < 0.0001). Delayed episodes of bleeding were equal (n = 3) in each arm. The type of current used when performing endoscopic sphincterotomy does not appear to alter the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The selection of electrosurgical current for biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy should be based on endoscopist preference.Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 10/2004; 60(4):551-6. · 5.21 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Pancreatic stenting is an effective method to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in high-risk patients. This retrospective study evaluated the impact of modified stent characteristics on the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis, spontaneous stent dislodgment, and stent-related sequelae. A total of 2283 patients underwent 2447 ERCPs over a 6-year period with placement of 3-4F diameter, unflanged pancreatic stents. The indication for stenting was pancreatitis prophylaxis predominantly in suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD), pancreas divisum therapy, and precut sphincterotomy. An abdominal radiograph was obtained 10-14 days later to assess spontaneous stent passage. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined according to established criteria. A total of 479 patients underwent repeat ERCPs after an initial ERCP with pancreatic stent placement. The prestenting pancreatogram was then compared with follow-up studies. The pancreatitis rate with 3F, 4F, 5F, and 6F stents was 7.5%, 10.6%, 9.8%, and 14.6%, respectively (3F vs. 4F, 5F, 6F: P = 0.047). Spontaneous stent dislodgment was 86%, 73%, 67%, and 65%, respectively (3F vs. 4F, 5F, 6F: P < 0.0001). The frequency of ductal changes was 24% in patients with 3-4F stents compared with 80% with 5-6F stents. Ductal perforation from the stents occurred in 3 patients (0.1%). Small diameter (3-4F), unflanged pancreatic stents are more effective than the traditionally used stents (5-6F) in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Stent-induced ductal changes and the need for endoscopic removal are also significantly less with 3-4F stents. The 3F stent appears to be superior in all aspects studied. Additional studies are needed to define the ideal method to eliminate post-ERCP pancreatitis.Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 04/2004; 2(4):322-9. · 6.65 Impact Factor