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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zolotarevsky et al. (2011) studied this question.