Short 5Fr vs Long 3Fr Pancreatic Stents in Patients at Risk for Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis

Background & Aims

Prophylactic placement of pancreatic duct (PD) stents reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. Some endoscopists prefer longer length, unflanged 3Fr PD stents because they are supposedly more effective and have a higher rate of spontaneous dislodgement; we compared outcomes of patients with these 2 types of stents.

Methods

Patients at high risk for PEP were randomly assigned to groups given either a straight, 5Fr, 3 cm long, unflanged PD stent (n = 116) or a 3Fr, 8 cm or longer, unflanged PD stent (n = 133). Abdominal radiographs were obtained at 24 hours, 7 days, and 14 days following stent placement to assess spontaneous stent dislodgement. PEP was defined according to consensus criteria.

Results

After 14 days, the spontaneous stent dislodgement rates were 98% for 5Fr stents and 88% for 3Fr stents (P = .0001). PEP occurred in 12% of patients. The incidence of PEP was higher in the 3Fr group (14%) than the 5Fr group (9%), although this difference was not statistically significant (P = .3). Placement failure did not occur in any patients in the 5Fr stent group, but did occur in 11 of the 133 patients in the 3Fr stent group (P = .0003).

Conclusions

Among patients at high-risk for PEP, the spontaneous dislodgement rate of unflanged, short-length, 5Fr PD stents is significantly higher than for unflanged, long-length, 3Fr stents. This decreases the need for endoscopic removal. A higher rate of PD stent placement failure and PEP was observed in patients with 3Fr stents.

To view this article's video abstract, go to the AGA's YouTube Channel.

Abbreviations used in this paper: ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, PD, pancreatic duct, PEP, postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, SOD, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction