Prospective, randomized, controlled trial of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for endoscopic snare excision of the duodenal ampulla

Clinical impact of endoscopic papillectomy for benign-malignant borderline lesions of the major duodenal papilla

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The present study retrospectively analyzed the clinical impact of endoscopic papillectomy on the selection of a treatment strategy for patients with benign-malignant borderline lesions of the major duodenal papilla.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between November 1995 and July 2009, 28 patients were selected for endoscopic papillectomy. The clinical impact of endoscopic papillectomy was assessed. Snare resection was performed in a radical fashion.

RESULTS

An endoscopic papillectomy was technically feasible in all patients. En bloc excision was achieved in 22 cases (79%). The final histopathological diagnoses of the endoscopic specimen were 17 adenoma (61%), 7 carcinoma in adenoma (25%), and 4 adenocarcinoma (14%). Two out of the four adenocarcinoma cases were referred for surgery. The other two patients with negative margins have not experienced recurrences during the follow-up period. A residual tumor was detected in 1 out of 17 cases (6%) of adenoma and 2 out of 7 cases (29%) of carcinoma in adenoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic papillectomy is therefore considered to be an effective treatment for patients with a benign-malignant borderline lesion of the major duodenal papilla. This method also has an important clinical impact because it provides an accurate diagnosis, aids in the selection of an appropriate treatment strategy, and reduces unnecessary surgery.

Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of ERCP. It can be associated with substantial morbidity. Hence, the minimization of both the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis is paramount. Considerable efforts have been made to identify factors that may be associated with an increased risk of this complication. In addition, both procedure- and pharmacological-related interventions have been proposed that may prevent this complication. This paper outlines these interventions and presents the evidence to support their use in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Ampullary adenoma

Ampullary adenoma is a premalignant lesion involving the major papilla and surrounding mucosa of the second duodenum. These lesions may arise sporadically or in the setting of familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome. Ampullary adenoma may be found because of symptoms, at the time of adenomatous polyposis syndrome surveillance, or incidentally when upper endoscopy is performed for other reasons. Management options include observation, local or extended surgical resection (including pancreaticoduodenectomy), and endoscopic resection. Endoscopic resection is being performed more often and involves techniques similar to those of colonoscopic polypectomy. Preventing post-endoscopic resection pancreatitis is important and can be achieved with placement of temporary pancreatic duct stents.

Short-term results of 42 endoscopic ampullectomies: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVE

Benign lesions of the major papilla are rare but raise the problem of their medical care. We studied the efficacy, safety, and histology of the endoscopic ampullectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty-two endoscopic resections of the major papilla were undertaken in 23 males and 19 females of a mean age of 63. Five patients (12%) presented with a familial adenomatous polyposis. The assessment of resectability included preoperative histology, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 26 patients (62%) always showing intra-mucosal lesion. The resection was performed with a duodenoscope, using a diathermic loop with a pure current section.

RESULTS

The resection was realized in one piece for 34 patients, in 2-4 fragments for 8 patients. A plastic pancreatic stent was inserted in 26 patients (62%), a plastic biliary stent in 10 patients (24%). There were no deaths but nine complications (21%): six acute pancreatitis (four patients with a pancreatic stent, contrary to the literature), three delayed gastrointestinal bleeding. The final histological result was fibrosis and inflammatory tissue in 7 patients, low-grade dysplasia in 20 patients, high-grade dysplasia or in situ carcinoma in 10 patients, invasive adenocarcinoma in 1 patient, and somatostatinoma in 2 patients (concordance of 72% with the initial histology). The resection was complete in 39 patients (93%). Three patients had additional surgery because of positive margin of resection or bad histology criteria. The median of follow-up in 33 patients with a complete resection was of 15 months, and we did not note any recurrence in 29 patients (88%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ampullectomy is an efficient treatment for superficial lesions of the papilla, despite a significant but rarely severe morbidity. Preoperative EUS is mandatory, preoperative histology is advisable. Long-term follow-up is necessary.

Pancreatic stents

Use of stents in the pancreas has been confined and limited to referral centers that specialize in the treatment of patients with severe pancreatitis and acute relapsing pancreatitis. With therapeutic development in endoscopic treatment of pancreatic diseases and a better understanding of the cause and prevention of ERCP related complications, the use of stents has been extended to transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collection or of pancreatic ducts has well as to prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. As a result, indication for pancreatic stenting and the kind of stents to be used as well as the followup after placement varies. This article reviews the major indication for pancreatic stent placement and focuses on the choice of stent, technique of implantation and followup.

Recurrent and relapsing pancreatitis

Recurrent acute pancreatitis is a common clinical problem. Most cases of pancreatitis are identified by a careful history and physical examination. Despite advanced evaluation, the cause is not apparent in about 10% of cases. The etiology of recurrent acute pancreatitis appears to be multifactorial, with genetic and environmental influences playing a significant role. The strength of evidence for certain etiologies is highly variable, and natural history data are limited. Controversy exists regarding the most appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic approach. Recurrent acute pancreatitis often represents a continuum with chronic pancreatitis.

Moderate and severe postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis despite prophylactic pancreatic stent placement: the effect of early prophylactic pancreatic stent dislodgement

BACKGROUND

Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS) is a method proven to reduce the rate and severity of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients; however, PPS do not eliminate the risk completely. Early PPS dislodgement may occur prematurely and contribute to more frequent or severe PEP.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of early dislodgement of PPS in patients with moderate or severe PEP.

METHODS

A total of 27,176 ERCP procedures from January 1994 to September 2007 for PPS placement in high-risk patients were analyzed. Patient and procedure data were analyzed to assess risk factors for PEP, and to evaluate the severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization and subsequent complications. Timing of stent dislodgment was assessed radiographically.

RESULTS

PPS were placed in 7661 patients. Of these, 580 patients (7.5%) developed PEP, which was graded as mild in 460 (6.0%), moderate in 87 (1.1%) and severe in 33 (0.4%). Risk factors for developing PEP were not different in patients who developed moderate PEP compared with those with severe PEP. PPS dislodged before 72 h in seven of 59 (11.9%) patients with moderate PEP and five of 27 (18.5%) patients with severe PEP (P=0.505). The mean (± SD) length of hospitalization in patients with moderate PEP with stent dislodgement before and after 72 h were 7.43 ± 1.46 days and 8.37 ± 1.16 days, respectively (P=0.20). The mean length of hospitalization in patients with severe PEP whose stent dislodged before and after 72 h were 21.6 ± 6.11 and 22.23 ± 3.13 days, respectively (P=0.96).

CONCLUSION

Early PPS dislodgement was associated with moderate and severe PEP in less than 20% of cases and was not associated with a more severe course. Factors other than ductal obstruction contribute to PEP in high-risk patients undergoing ERCP and PPS placement.

Acute pancreatitis after removal of retained prophylactic pancreatic stents

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPSs) are used to decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The risk associated with PPS removal is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the rate of PEP in patients undergoing PPS removal without pancreatogram or other manipulation of the major or minor papilla.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care academic center.

PATIENTS

This study involved 230 patients undergoing removal of PPSs from 1997 to 2010.

INTERVENTION

PPS removal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rate of acute pancreatitis associated with removal of PPS alone.

RESULTS

Acute pancreatitis occurred after PPS removal in 7 of 230 (3.0%) cases. PEP was graded as mild, moderate, and severe in 2, 5, and 0 cases, respectively. Statistically significant risk factors of PEP after PPS removal include use of a 5F stent (P=.001), use of a stent with an internal flange (P<.01), and occurrence of PEP after the initial ERCP (P<.01). Longer duration of stent within the pancreatic duct before removal was of borderline significance (P=.06). Patient age; sex; indication for initial procedure; the presence of pancreas divisum, ansa loop, or chronic pancreatitis; and history of pancreatic or biliary sphincterotomy or orifice dilation were not significant risk factors for pancreatitis after PPS removal.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Small number of events.

CONCLUSION

Removal of retained PPSs may cause mild or moderate acute pancreatitis. This risk of acute pancreatitis may diminish the overall efficacy of PPS use by delaying the occurrence of PEP rather than eliminating it. This implies that PPSs should be used only in patients at high risk for PEP.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of ampullary neoplasm (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIM

For ampullary cancer, pancreaticoduodenectomy is considered to be the standard treatment. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been utilized in cases of ampullary adenoma since the early 1980s. We aimed to provide a review concerning EP.

METHODS

We conducted a review of studies regarding EP for ampullary neoplasms.

RESULTS

Since neither lymphatic permeation, vascular invasion, nor lymph node metastasis is observed in patients with ampullary cancer limited to the mucosa, EP of such tumors without ductal infiltration into the pancreatic/bile duct can be justified as radical treatment. For its application in patients with ampullary neoplasms, accurate pretreatment staging is indispensable. EUS, which can be carried out on an outpatient basis with a low risk of complications, is useful for differential diagnosis as well as detection of periampullary tumors. Although intraductal US of the bile duct tends to result in overestimation of tumor staging in cases of ampullary neoplasm, it can provide useful information for making therapeutic decisions, especially in cases appropriate for EP. While the technical success rate of EP is high, the complication rate and recurrence rate are not as low as a satisfactory level. Pancreatic duct stenting after EP is expected to contribute to prevention of post-EP pancreatitis. There is no consensus regarding the mode of resection current nor the need for addition of biliary/pancreatic sphincterotomy and biliary stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

EP has been reported to be useful in selected patients with ampullary neoplasms. Data on further long-term follow up after EP are awaited.

Prophylactic 5-Fr pancreatic duct stents are superior to 3-Fr stents: a randomized controlled trial

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.

Acute pancreatitis with an emphasis on infection

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease that is mild and self-limiting in about 80% of cases. However, severe necrotizing disease still has a mortality of up to 30%. Differentiated multimodal treatment concepts are needed for these patients, including a multidisciplinary team (intensivists, gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, and surgeons). The primary therapy is supportive. Patients with infected pancreatic necrosis who are septic undergo interventional or surgical treatment, ideally not before the fourth week after onset of symptoms. This article reviews the pathophysiologic mechanisms of acute pancreatitis and describes clinical pathways for diagnosis and management based on the current literature and guidelines.

Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of ERCP. Several randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the use of pancreatic stents in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with varying results.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the role of prophylactic pancreatic stents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

DESIGN

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and recent abstracts from major conference proceedings were searched. RCTs and retrospective or prospective, nonrandomized studies comparing prophylactic stent with placebo or no stent for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included for the meta-analysis and systematic review. Standard forms were used to extract data by 2 independent reviewers. The effect of stents (for RCTs) was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and grade of pancreatitis. Separate analyses were performed for each outcome by using the odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference. Random- or fixed-effects models were used. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by calculating I(2) measure of inconsistency.

SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis of patients undergoing pancreatic stent placement for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis.

PATIENTS

Adult patients undergoing ERCP.

INTERVENTIONS

Pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and complications after pancreatic stent placement.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs (656 subjects) and 10 nonrandomized studies met the inclusion criteria (4904 subjects). Meta-analysis of the RCTs showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.38; P<.01). The absolute risk difference was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.8%-17.8%). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% CI, 6-11). Stents also decreased the level of hyperamylasemia (WMD, -309.22; 95% CI, -350.95 to -267.49; P≤.01). Similar findings were also noted from the nonrandomized studies.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size of some trials, different types of stents used, inclusion of low-risk patients in some studies, and lack of adequate study of long-term complications of pancreatic stent placement.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic stent placement decreases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in high-risk patients.

Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high risk patients who have undergone prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatitis remains a serious complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients at high risk has been established in several randomized controlled trials. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients who had undergone prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2002 and January 2010, ERCP-related procedures were performed in 9192 cases of pancreatobiliary diseases at seven institutions. Among them, 414 patients (246 men, 168 women; mean age, 68 yr; age range, 22-91 yr) at high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis who had undergone prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting were included in this study. The stent used in the present study was a 5-Fr stent with a single duodenal pigtail, which is made of soft polyethylene and has no flange (Pit-stent: Cathex, Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The pancreatic duct stent was placed via the channel of the duodenoscope over a guidewire with the assistance of fluoroscopy at the end of the procedure. The frequency and risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis were investigated. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined based on the consensus criteria.

RESULTS

Therapeutic ERCP was performed in 52% of the patients. Indications for prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting were as follows: difficult cannulation of the bile duct, 192; pancreatic duct cytology/biopsy, 95; precut sphincterotomy, 40; pancreatic sphincterotomy, 29; female gender, 28; papillectomy, 25; sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, 12; history of pancreatitis, 10. Hyperamylasemia at 18-24 h after ERCP was observed in 64% (267 patients) of the patients. Pancreatitis occurred in 9.9% (41 patients: mild, 37; moderate, 2; severe, 2). Univariate analysis revealed intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas to be the only significant risk factor for pancreatitis (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.2, 7.1). Multivariate analysis also showed IPMN to be the only risk factor for pancreatitis (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2, 7.8). The mean diameter of the pancreatic head duct in patients with IPMN who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly smaller than that in those who did not develop pancreatitis (3.0 ± 1 mm vs 4.7 ± 2.6 mm, p=0.0037).

CONCLUSION

Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 9.9% of the patients at high risk who had undergone prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting. Since the majority of cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis were mild, pancreatic duct stenting may contribute to lessening the severity of pancreatitis. The present results suggest that IPMN without a dilated pancreatic head duct is a possible risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis after prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting.

Can pancreatic duct stenting prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients who undergo pancreatic duct guidewire placement for achieving selective biliary cannulation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although pancreatic duct guidewire placement (P-GW) for achieving selective biliary cannulation is reported to be effective in patients in whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is difficult, this technique entails a possible increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate the prophylactic effect of pancreatic duct stenting on the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients who underwent P-GW.

METHODS

Seventy patients who underwent P-GW for achieving selective biliary cannulation were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the stent group (n = 35) or the no-stent group (n = 35). The pancreatic duct stent used was a 5-Fr, 4-cm-long stent with a single pigtail at the duodenal end (Pit-stent™). The primary endpoint was the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Selective biliary cannulation was achieved in 80% of the stent group and in 94% of the no-stent group (P = 0.15). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 13% (9 patients; mild). Pancreatic duct stenting was successful in 91% of the stent group. One patient in the stent group developed migration of the stent during the procedure, followed by mild pancreatitis. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the stent group was significantly lower than that in the no-stent group (2.9 vs. 23%, relative risk 0.13, confidence interval 0.016, 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic duct stenting after P-GW for achieving selective biliary cannulation is recommended to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Endoscopic resection of ampullary adenoma after a new insulated plastic pancreatic stent placement: a pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although pancreatic stent insertion is recommended for the prevention of post-procedure pancreatitis during endoscopic papillectomy, insertion of the stent after the procedure can be technically difficult. The aim of the present study was to determine the feasibility and safety of inserting a newly developed insulated pancreatic stent before endoscopic papillectomy.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective pilot study involving 11 consecutive patients with adenomas of the major duodenal papilla. After a 5F polytetrafluoroethylene-insulated pancreatic stent was inserted through the tumor, the stent and tumor were simultaneously grasped with a snare. After resection of the tumor with the stent in place, the tumor was incised perpendicularly along the edge of the stent for retrieval of the specimen.

RESULTS

In all patients, the insulated pancreatic stents were successfully inserted before endoscopic papillectomy and were resistant to electrical current; retrieval of the specimen was technically feasible and successful without stent migration. There were no stent-related complications, but five papillectomy-related complications (including mild bleeding [n = 4] and late papillary stenosis [n = 1]) occurred without any episodes of acute pancreatitis or perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-resection stenting with a polytetrafluoroethylene-insulated stent in patients with adenomas of the major duodenal papilla is a feasible and useful technique to prevent pancreatitis.

Can pancreatic duct stenting prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients who undergo pancreatic duct guidewire placement for achieving selective biliary cannulation? A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Although pancreatic duct guidewire placement (P-GW) for achieving selective biliary cannulation is reported to be effective in patients in whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is difficult, this technique entails a possible increased risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate the prophylactic effect of pancreatic duct stenting on the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients who underwent P-GW.

METHODS

Seventy patients who underwent P-GW for achieving selective biliary cannulation were included in this study. Patients were randomly assigned to either the stent group (n = 35) or the no-stent group (n = 35). The pancreatic duct stent used was a 5-Fr, 4-cm-long stent with a single pigtail at the duodenal end (Pit-stent™). The primary endpoint was the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Selective biliary cannulation was achieved in 80% of the stent group and in 94% of the no-stent group (P = 0.15). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 13% (9 patients; mild). Pancreatic duct stenting was successful in 91% of the stent group. One patient in the stent group developed migration of the stent during the procedure, followed by mild pancreatitis. The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the stent group was significantly lower than that in the no-stent group (2.9 vs. 23%, relative risk 0.13, confidence interval 0.016, 0.95).

CONCLUSION

Pancreatic duct stenting after P-GW for achieving selective biliary cannulation is recommended to reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated pancreatitis: A 15-year review

The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. We searched for and evaluated all articles describing the diagnosis, epidemiology, pathophysiology, morbidity, mortality and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in adult patients using the PubMed database. Search terms included endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, pancreatitis, ampulla of vater, endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilatation, cholangiography, adverse events, standards and utilization. We limited our review of articles to those published between January 1, 1994 and August 15, 2009 regarding human adults and written in the English language. Publications from the reference sections were reviewed and included if they were salient and fell into the time period of interest. Between the dates queried, seventeen large (> 500 patients) prospective and four large retrospective trials were conducted. PEP occurred in 1%-15% in the prospective trials and in 1%-4% in the retrospective trials. PEP was also reduced with pancreatic duct stent placement and outcomes were improved with endoscopic sphincterotomy compared to balloon sphincter dilation in the setting of choledocholithiasis. Approximately 34 pharmacologic agents have been evaluated for the prevention of PEP over the last fifteen years in 63 trials. Although 22 of 63 trials published during our period of review suggested a reduction in PEP, no pharmacologic therapy has been widely accepted in clinical use in decreasing the development of PEP. In conclusion, PEP is a well-recognized complication of ERCP. Medical treatment for prevention has been disappointing. Proper patient selection and pancreatic duct stenting have been shown to reduce the complication rate in randomized clinical trials.

Giant laterally spreading tumors of the papilla: endoscopic features, resection technique, and outcome (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Successful endoscopic treatment of conventional papillary adenomas is well described. However, many authors recommend surgical resection for larger lesions with extrapapillary extension.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the classification, technique, and outcome for the endoscopic resection of giant laterally spreading tumors of the papilla (LST-P).

DESIGN

Single-center case series.

SETTINGS

Tertiary referral academic gastroenterology unit.

PATIENTS

Patients referred for endoscopic treatment of LST-P.

INTERVENTION

Pre-resection staging and single-session endoscopic removal of papillary adenomas. For those classified as LST-P (>30 mm, extending beyond the papilla onto the duodenal wall and involving as much as two thirds of the duodenal circumference), a standardized single-session EMR technique was used.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Technical success, complications, and adenoma recurrence for single-session removal of LST-P. Outcomes were compared with those of conventional ampullary adenoma resection during the same period.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients with ampullary adenomas were referred. In 10 patients identified with LST-P (mean age 70.2 years; adenoma size 30-80 mm), combination EMR and papillectomy was performed in a single session. The median admission duration was 1 night (range 0-35). Complications included bleeding (30%) and cholecystitis (10%), with no cases of pancreatitis or perforation. Adenoma recurrence at 3 months was found in 1 patient (10%). Complication and recurrence rates in smaller (<30 mm) ampullary adenoma resections were not significantly different.

LIMITATIONS

A relatively uncommon entity and thus small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of carefully staged LST-P is a viable therapeutic alternative to surgery. In experienced hands, the outcomes are comparable to those for conventional ampullary adenomas.

The safety and utility of prophylactic pancreatic duct stents in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: an analysis of practice in a single UK tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

The use of temporary prophylactic pancreatic duct (PD) stents in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis in high-risk patients has been shown to be effective in multiple trials. However, there are limited data on the clinical implications of PD stents and their impact on practice outside of the trial setting.

METHODS

The utility of prophylactic pancreatic stenting was evaluated in a retrospective analysis of 1,000 consecutive ERCPs performed in a single tertiary referral pancreatobiliary center over a 24-month period, based upon a predetermined protocol to identify patients at high risk of postprocedure pancreatitis.

RESULTS

One thousand procedures performed in 688 patients were studied. Sixty-one patients were considered for stent placement and stents were successfully placed in 58 cases. The overall rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis in our study population was 3.6%. The rate of pancreatitis in the stented patients was considered high at 22.4%, but the majority (69%) were classified as mild and there were no reported severe episodes. This compares to pancreatitis in the nonstented group, in whom the majority (73.9%) experienced either moderate or severe episodes.

CONCLUSION

A strategy of prophylactic PD stents in this study has eliminated severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. However, the high pancreatitis rate in stented patients may represent the cost to achieve this, while stent type and size employed are likely contributing factors. To maximize the benefits of PD stenting, there is a need to identify and treat all those considered at high risk.

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.

A survey of ampullectomy practices

AIM: To investigate the endoscopic ampullectomy practices of expert biliary endoscopists.

METHODS: An anonymous survey was mailed to 79 expert biliary endoscopists to assess ampullectomy practices.

RESULTS: Forty six (58%) biliary endoscopists returned the questionnaire. Of these, 63% were in academia and in practice for an average of 16.4 years (± 8.6). Endoscopists performed an average of 1.1 (± 0.8) ampullectomies per month. Prior to ampullectomy, endoscopic ultrasound was “always” utilized by 67% of respondents vs“sometimes” in 31% of respondents. Empiric biliary sphincterotomy was not utilized uniformly, only 26% “always” and 37% “sometimes” performed it prior to resection. Fifty three percent reported “never” performing empiric pancreatic sphincterotomy prior to ampullectomy. Practitioners with high endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volumes were the most likely to perform a pancreatic sphincterotomy (OR = 10.9; P = 0.09). Participants overwhelmingly favored “always” placing a prophylactic pancreatic stent, with 86% placing it after ampullectomy rather than prior to resection (23%). Argon plasma coagulation was the favored adjunct modality (83%) for removal of residual adenomatous tissue. Practitioners uniformly (100%) preferred follow-up examination to be within 6 mo post-ampullectomy.

CONCLUSION: Among biliary experts, there is less variation in ampullectomy practices than is reflected in the literature.

Endoscopic snare papillectomy with biliary and pancreatic stent placement for tumors of the major duodenal papilla

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and follow-up results of endoscopic papilletomy (ESP) with pancreatic and biliary duct stent placement for ampullary tumors. The therapeutic approach to benign ampullary tumors remains unsettled. The ESP procedure is a curative treatment option for benign papillary tumors, but ESP raises concerns about a relatively high risk for procedure-related complications such as pancreatitis. A pancreatic stent may protect against complications.

METHODS

Between September 2000 and June 2008, 36 patients with ampullary tumors confined to the mucosa and no intraductal tumor growth underwent ESP. The preprocedural diagnostic tools included endoscopic ultrasound, transpapillary intraductal ultrasound, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Pancreatic and biliary stent placement was attempted if feasible. Endoscopic follow-up evaluation was conducted periodically as surveillance for recurrence.

RESULTS

En bloc ESP was achieved for 94% of lesions with a median size of 14 mm. There were 26 adenomas including 4 high-grade intraepithelial neoplasias (HGINs), 5 carcinomas in adenoma, and 3 intramucosal cancers. Complete resections with tumor-free lateral and basal margins was achieved for 81% of the cases. During the median follow-up period of 14 months, there was one recurrent adenoma, which was successfully eradicated by a repeat ESP. A pancreatic stent was placed in 35 cases and a biliary stent in 29 cases. Mild acute pancreatitis and bleeding, managed endoscopically, occurred in 3 cases each (8%).

CONCLUSION

The ESP procedure can be feasible for benign ampullary adenoma, HGIN, and noninvasive cancer without intraductal tumor growth. Prophylactic stent placement in the pancreatic and bile ducts may reduce procedure-related complications.

Endoscopic resection of ampullary neoplasms: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

An ampullary tumor, whether malignant or not, must be completely resected. A benign adenoma has the potential for malignant transformation. Currently, endoscopic papillectomy with curative intent is increasingly performed for benign papillary tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic papillectomy performed for ampullary tumors at a single center.

METHODS

From July 2003 to June 2008, 22 patients with a diagnosis of ampullary tumors determined by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were treated using endoscopic resection of the tumors. Endoscopic resection was performed in a radical fashion analogous to polypectomy for colon adenomas.

RESULTS

The 22 patients (9 men and 13 women) had an average age of 58 +/- 14 years (range, 19-85 years). The median follow-up period was 169 days (range, 14-903 days). The papillary lesions ranged in size from 8 to 33 mm. The rate of concordance between the endoscopic forceps biopsy and the resected specimen was 50% (9/18) according to the Vienna classification. Complete endoscopic resections were performed for 17 of 22 the cases (77.3%). The median length of hospital stay was 4 days (range, 2-11 days), and there were no readmissions for complications. Endoscopic complications occurred for 5 (22.7%) of the 22 patients: postpapillectomy pancreatitis for 4 patients, bleeding for 1 patient, and retroperitoneal perforation for 1 patient. However, no procedure-related deaths occurred. After the papillectomy, a pathologically incomplete resection was noted in 10 cases, including submucosal invasion of an adenocarcinoma with lateral clean resection margins.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings showed that an endoscopic papillectomy was safe and effective for benign-appearing adenomas with negative biopsy results for a malignancy. This procedure should be considered as the initial intervention in such cases. The decision whether to perform a pancreatoduodenectomy can be made after the pathology report of the resected specimen is obtained from the endoscopic papillectomy.

Minimizing complications in pancreaticobiliary endoscopy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound are invaluable tools in the diagnostic and therapeutic evaluation and management of a variety of pancreatobiliary disorders. Along with a significant refinement in the equipment and techniques used has come a recent trend toward aggressive therapeutic interventions. Because of the technical nature of these procedures and the characteristics of the patients, post-procedural complications may occur, ranging from minor (requiring brief hospitalization) to severe (causing permanent disability or death). This review summarizes these complications and outlines strategies to minimize them.

[Diagnosis and treatment of ampullary tumors]

Tumors of the ampulla of Vater are called ampullary tumors and can arise from any of the three epithelia (duodenal, pancreatic and biliary) that delimit the papilla. These tumors are clinically important and early identification, appropriate staging and proper treatment are essential. The symptoms of these tumors are non-specific and not always evident. All ampullary tumors must be resected but opinions differ on the optimal method of excision. Currently, controlled trials are lacking and consequently the treatment chosen must be individually tailored according to the characteristics of the patient and the tumor. Curative treatment may be endoscopic or surgical. In patients who are not candidates for curative treatment, palliative treatment through drainage can be performed.

Pancreatic guidewire placement for achieving selective biliary cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography

AIM: To investigate the frequency and risk factors for acute pancreatitis after pancreatic guidewire placement (P-GW) in achieving cannulation of the bile duct during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS: P-GW was performed in 113 patients in whom cannulation of the bile duct was difficult. The success rate of biliary cannulation, the frequency and risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis, and the frequency of spontaneous migration of the pancreatic duct stent were investigated.

RESULTS: Selective biliary cannulation with P-GW was achieved in 73% of the patients. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 12% (14 patients: mild, 13; moderate, 1). Prophylactic pancreatic stenting was attempted in 59% of the patients. Of the 64 patients who successfully underwent stent placement, three developed mild pancreatitis (4.7%). Of the 49 patients without stent placement, 11 developed pancreatitis (22%: mild, 10; moderate, 1). Of the five patients in whom stent placement was unsuccessful, two developed mild pancreatitis. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed no pancreatic stenting to be the only significant risk factor for pancreatitis. Spontaneous migration of the stent was observed within two weeks in 92% of the patients who had undergone pancreatic duct stenting.

CONCLUSION: P-GW is useful for achieving selective biliary cannulation. Pancreatic duct stenting after P-GW can reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, which requires evaluation by means of prospective randomized controlled trials.

Endoscopic papillectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although few controlled trials exist in the field, endoscopic papillectomy has evolved over the recent years with new data on preoperative staging and improved methods for its safe and successful completion. In 2006, a consensus guideline was published by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy evaluating the role of endoscopy in managing ampullary adenomas.

RECENT FINDINGS

The recent literature of endoscopic papillectomy has focused on the preoperative management of ampullary tumors, with a paper evaluating the role of endoscopic ultrasound. Also, a randomized controlled trial has shown that the use of pancreatic duct stents is associated with less incidence of postendoscopic papillectomy pancreatitis, although the study was probably underpowered. Several methods can be used to help locate the pancreatic duct postendoscopic papillectomy (endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and methylene blue injection). The recurrence and complication rate in more recent papers continue to be acceptable, at about 30 and 20%, respectively.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic papillectomy is a reasonable alternative to transduodenal surgical excision, but more controlled studies with long-term data are needed to evaluate preoperative staging accuracy and recurrence rates.

Endoscopic resection of minor papilla adenomas (with video)

BACKGROUND

Although there are several large series on endoscopic resection of the major duodenal papilla, only commentary on individual cases has been presented on endoscopic minor papilla resection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the technical success and safety of endoscopy for resection of minor papilla adenomas.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Academic tertiary-referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of minor papilla adenomas over a 12-month period.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients underwent an EUS before an ERCP to exclude ductal involvement by the tumor and for evaluation of pancreatic-ductal anatomy. The minor papilla was removed by snare electrocautery in all patients. A pancreatic stent was placed in the dorsal duct in patients with pancreas divisum as a prophylaxis for post-ERCP pancreatitis. Complications were assessed per consensus criteria.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To evaluate the technical success and safety of endoscopy for resection of minor papilla adenomas.

OBSERVATIONS

Three patients underwent endoscopic resection of minor papilla adenomas over a 12-month period. The first patient had minor papilla adenoma, the second had coexisting pancreas divisum anatomy, and the third had adenomatous involvement of both the major and minor papillas. Minor papilla resection was technically successful in all 3 patients, with dual major and minor papilla resection in 1 patient who had adenomatous changes at both sites. Although 2 patients experienced no complications, the patient with pancreas divisum developed mild post-ERCP pancreatitis. At a 12-month follow-up, there was no evidence of tumor recurrence in any of the 3 patients.

LIMITATION

Small number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands, endoscopic resection of the minor papilla is technically feasible, safe, and is associated with favorable clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic management of acute and chronic pancreatitis

Endoscopic therapy has been increasingly recognized as the effective therapy in selected patients with acute pancreatitis and chronic pancreatitis (CP). Utility of endotherapy in various conditions occurring in acute pancreatitis and CP is discussed. Its efficacy, limitations, and alternatives are addressed. For the best management of these complex entities, a multidisciplinary approach involving expertise in all pancreatic specialties is essential to achieve the goal.

Acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas. Acute abdominal pain is the most common symptom, and increased concentrations of serum amylase and lipase confirm the diagnosis. Pancreatic injury is mild in 80% of patients, who recover without complications. The remaining patients have a severe disease with local and systemic complications. Gallstone migration into the common bile duct and alcohol abuse are the most frequent causes of pancreatitis in adults. About 15-25% of pancreatitis episodes are of unknown origin. Treatment of mild disease is supportive, but severe episodes need management by a multidisciplinary team including gastroenterologists, interventional radiologists, intensivists, and surgeons. Improved understanding of pathophysiology and better assessments of disease severity should ameliorate the management and outcome of this complex disease.

Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Placement of pancreatic stents is a relatively new and increasingly adopted approach to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Evidence for the efficacy of pancreatic stents in reducing post-ERCP pancreatitis continues to accumulate. Routine use of pancreatic stents in high-risk cases at advanced centers has changed the complexion of ERCP, reducing the incidence and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis to a more acceptable level, and eliminating some of the fear factor surrounding previously prohibitively risky settings, such as treatment of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD). On the other hand, the adoption of prophylactic pancreatic stenting into some practices has been sporadic. Problems with pancreatic stent placement include technical difficulty with placement, need for follow-up evaluation to ensure passage or removal, and potential for inducing pancreatic ductal injury. There remain many challenges and unanswered questions which will be addressed in this review, including which patients are at risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, how might pancreatic stents reduce risk, what is the evidence supporting efficacy of pancreatic stenting in reducing risk; and based on those data, which ERCPs are at sufficiently high risk to warrant a stent; at what point in an ERCP should a pancreatic stent be placed; how long pancreatic stents need to remain in place to be effective, the risk of inducing pancreatic duct injury by placement of a stent; the frequency and consequences of failure at attempted stent placement, and effectiveness of pancreatic stent placement in the hands of those with limited experience. Current recommendations for use of pancreatic stents and areas requiring further investigation are discussed.

Pancreatits after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography

Pancreatitis is the most common complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); the reported incidence of this complication varies from less than 1% to 40%, but a rate of 4%-8% is reported in most prospective studies involving non-selected patients. Differences in criteria for defining pancreatitis, methods of data collection, and patient populations (i.e. number of high-risk patients included in the published series) are factors that are likely to affect the varying rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can range from a minor inconvenience with one or two days of added hospitalization with full recovery to a devastating illness with pancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, permanent disability, and even death. Although, most episodes of PEP are mild (about 90%), a small percentage of patients (about 10%) develop moderate or severe pancreatitis. In the past, PEP was often viewed as an unpredictable and unavoidable complication, with no realistic strategy for its avoidance. New data have aided in stratification of patients into PEP risk categories and new measures have been introduced to decrease the risk of PEP. As most ERCPs are performed on an outpatient basis, the majority of patients will not develop PEP and can be discharged. Alternatively, early detection of those patients who will go on to develop PEP can guide decisions regarding hospital admission and aggressive management. In the last decade, great efforts have been addressed toward prevention of this complication. Points of emphasis have included technical measures, pharmacological prophylaxis, and patient selection. This review provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of published data on PEP and current suggestions for its avoidance.

Acute pancreatitis secondary to adenomatous transformation of the ampulla of Vater in a patient with familial adenomatous polyposis

We present an unusual case of pancreatitis secondary to a polyp obstructing the papilla, treated endoscopically. A 45-year-old woman with familial adenomatous polyposis syndrome and prior total colectomy presented with acute pancreatitis. Upper endoscopy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticogram revealed significant periampullary tissue. Sphincterotomy and endoscopic snare resection of the polyp were performed without complications. Local, noninvasive procedures are a promising diagnostic and therapeutic modality which has significantly less morbidity and mortality than conventional surgical techniques, and may be a reasonable alternative in the management of such patients.

Success and complications of endoscopic removal of giant duodenal and ampullary polyps: a comparative series

BACKGROUND

Increasing reports suggest that endoscopic removal of benign ampullary and duodenal polyps is safe and frequently definitive; however, most reported polyps have been small in size (<3 cm). We have developed experience with endoscopic removal of increasingly large and complex polyps.

PATIENTS

Fifty-one cases of endoscopic removal were attempted and grouped according to size: group A (n = 22) polyps 1 to 3 cm and group B (n = 29) polyps 3 cm or larger, including 7 cases larger than 5 cm. When the ampulla was involved, biductal sphincterotomy and prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement was performed first, followed by saline solution-assisted piecemeal polypectomy, argon plasma coagulation, selective endoclip placement, and recovery of all polyp fragments.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic removal of duodenal and ampullary adenomas.

RESULTS

The outcomes of small and large adenoma removal include mean number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies required for complete removal (2.09 vs 2.56, P = .392), number of complications (4.5% vs 13.9%, P = .375), discovery of unsuspected cancer (0% vs 10.3%, P = .242), and final definitive resolution (100% vs 86.2%, P = .124). Complete removal was achieved in 92.2% of all patients.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Large (>/=3 cm) ampullary and duodenal polyps comprised 56.9% of our endoscopically treated cases and present special challenges to definitive endoscopic removal. Successful removal of even very large sessile lesions is possible with minimal increase in risk.

Interventional upper endoscopy: the adult perspective

Advances in interventional endoscopic technology and techniques are paving the way for the increased application of minimally invasive methods to treat various upper gastrointestinal conditions, both benign and malignant. Through the description of enteral stenting for palliation of malignant obstruction, expanded techniques of enteral feeding tube placement, mucosectomy of early gastric cancer, and snare ampullectomy for benign ampullary lesions, this review focuses on recent progress in therapeutic endoscopy of the stomach and duodenum and highlights the importance of continued research and development.

A survey of physician practices on prophylactic pancreatic stents

BACKGROUND

Several prospective studies confirm that prophylactic stent placement in the pancreatic duct (PD) during high-risk ERCP procedures decreases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Inconsistencies exist regarding the indications for prophylactic PD stent placement, the type of stent used, and stent follow-up.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the current practice patterns of expert biliary endoscopists regarding prophylactic pancreatic duct stents.

DESIGN

An anonymous survey was mailed to 54 expert biliary endoscopists, assessing volume of procedures, stent indications, method of placement, and follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 91% (49/54) of surveys were returned and analyzed. Prophylactic PD stents were used by 96% of respondents. Stent use was universal during ampullectomy and pancreatic sphincterotomy. Most also used stents for minor papillotomy (93%) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) confirmed by manometry (82%). Endoscopists disagreed on the following: pre-cut sphincterotomy (71%), prior post-ERCP pancreatitis (64%), suspected SOD (58-69%), and traumatic sphincterotomy (44%). Endoscopists used straight stents (33%), pigtail stents (30%), or a combination (33%). Internal flanges were always used by 14%, never used by 54%, and sometimes used by 32%. Stent size and length varied widely, as did the time stents were left in place, and the retrieval method.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert biliary endoscopists agree that prophylactic PD stenting is indicated during ERCP in high-risk patients. Wide variation exists in patient selection and stent placement technique.