ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stenting is widely used by expert biliary endoscopists to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are thought to prevent PEP. OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of pancreatic stenting and NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis among endoscopists and its determinants. DESIGN: A survey was distributed to 467 endoscopists attending a course on therapeutic digestive endoscopy. INTERVENTION: Completed surveys were collected from 141 endoscopists performing ERCP in 29 countries (answer rate 30.2%); practices were most often located in community hospitals with an annual hospital volume of < or = 500 ERCPs (in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and France in about half of cases). For all conditions listed, including needle-knife precut, previous PEP, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and ampullectomy, less than half of the endoscopists reported attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting in > or = 75% of cases. Thirty (21.3%) survey respondents did not perform prophylactic pancreatic stenting in any circumstance; this was mainly ascribed to lack of experience. Measurement of PEP incidence and an annual hospital volume of > 500 ERCPs were independently associated with the use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting (P = .005 and P = .030, respectively). Most survey respondents (n = 118, 83.7%) did not use NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. This was mainly ascribed to lack of scientific evidence of its benefits. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of cases in which pancreatic stenting is attempted during ERCP; reasons for not using prophylactic pancreatic stenting or NSAIDs. LIMITATIONS: Survey, not an audit of practice. CONCLUSIONS: Despite scientific evidence of its benefits, use of prophylactic pancreatic stenting is not as widely adopted as previously thought; use of NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis is marginal.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde/adverse effects , Pancreatitis/prevention & control , Stents , Adult , Female , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pancreatitis/etiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although data about the incidence and management of biliary complications after deceased-donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are well defined, those pertaining to adult living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) are conflicting. METHODS: We retrospectively compared endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) findings in 30 LDLT vs. 357 DDLT consecutive adult recipients with duct-to-duct biliary reconstruction. LDLT and DDLT recipients were followed up for median durations of 30.5 and 36.0 months after the last ERCP, respectively. RESULTS: Postoperative biliary complications were more frequently identified at ERCP after LDLT versus DDLT (10/30 [33.3%] vs. 34/357 [9.5%]; P<0.001). Complications mainly consisted of anastomotic biliary strictures (10/30 [33.3%] vs. 27/357 [7.6%]; LDLT vs. DDLT recipients, respectively; P<0.001) and biliary leaks (4/30 [13.3%] vs. 6/357 [1.7%]; LDLT vs. DDLT recipients, respectively; P=0.005; some patients had both complications). Stricture dilation was successful in 4/10 (40%) LDLT vs. 27/27 (100%) DDLT recipients (P<0.001), and bile ducts remained patent up to the end of follow-up without further intervention in 2/10 (20.0%) vs. 21/27 (77.8%) patients, respectively (P=0.002). Endoscopic treatment of bile leaks was successful in 3/4 (75.0%) vs. 5/6 (83.3%) LDLT versus DDLT recipients, respectively (NS). CONCLUSIONS: Biliary complications were more frequent after LDLT compared with DDLT. Endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures was successful in a minority of patients after LDLT, in contrast with DDLT. Most biliary leaks were successfully treated at endoscopy after LDLT or DDLT.
