Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: A meta-analysis

Table 1 Main characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Jadad	Total (n)	Risk factors/procedures	Stent type	Time for spontaneous dislodgement
Kawaguch et al[16]	4	120	History of previous PEP, difficult cannulation, SOD	5F (3 cm)	3 d 96.7% (58/60)
Lee et al[17]	5	101	Difficult cannulation	3F (4, 6, 8 cm)	7 d 94% (45/48)
Pan et al[18]	2	40	High-risk patients without	5F	NA
Sofuni et al[14]	5	407	High-risk patients irrespective of the type of the risk factor	5F (3 cm)	3 d 95.7% (178/186)
Ito et al[19]	4	70	Difficult cannulation	5F (4 cm)	NA
Sofuni et al[15]	3	201	High-risk patients irrespective of the type of the risk factor	5F (3 cm)	3 d 95.7% (90/94)
Tsuchiya et al[20]	3	64	Bile duct sphincterotomy	5F (3, 4 cm)	NA
Harewood et al[21]	4	19	Endoscopic ampullectomy	5F (3, 5 cm)	1 d 60% (6/10)
Fazel et al[22]	2	74	Difficult cannulation, SOM, billiy ES	5F (2 cm)	NA
Tarnasky et al[23]	2	80	SOD, SOM	5F or 7F (2, 2.5 cm)	NA

PEP: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; NA: Not available; ES: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; SOD: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; SOM: Sphincter of Oddi manometry.

Table 2 Incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Ref.	Stent group (n)					Non-stent group (n)					P value
	S-sten	Mild PEP	Moderate PEP	Serve PEP	Total PEP	n	Mild PEP	Moderate PEP	Serve PEP	Total PEP
Kawaguch et al[16]	60	1	0	0	1	60	8	0	0	8	0.032
Lee et al[17]	48	5	1	0	6	51	12	2	1	15	0.031
Pan et al[18]	20		NA		4	20		NA		14	< 0.01
Sofuni et al[14]	186	12	4	0	16	204	22	8	1	31	0.021
Ito et al[19]	32	0	0	0	0	35	8	0	0	8	NA
Sofuni et al[15]	94	2	1	0	3	103	8	6	0	14	0.019
Tsuchiya et al[20]	32	1	0	0	1	32	2	1	1	4	NS
Harewood et al[21]	10	0	0	0	0	8		NA	0	3	0.020
Fazel et al[22]	38	2	0	0	2	32	5	2	3	10	< 0.05
Tarnasky et al[23]	41	1	0	0	1	39	5	5	0	10	0.003

PEP: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; S-stent: Successful stent; NA: Not available; NS: Not significant.

Table 3 Incidence of hyperamylasemia

Ref.	Year	Hyperamylasemia
		Stent (n)	Control (n)	P value
Kawaguchi et al[16]	2012	18	23	0.862
Lee et al[17]	2012	8	6	0.538
Sofuni et al[14]	2011	86	68	0.200
Ito et al[19]	2010	21	26	NA
Sofuni et al[15]	2007	31	34	0.996
Tsuchiya et al[23]	2007	11	16	NS

NA: Not available; NS : Not significant.

Table 4 Incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in subjects with unsuccessful stent placement

Ref.	Candidate for stent (n)	Successful placement (n)	Unsuccessful placement (n)	PEP (n)
Lee et al[17]	50	48	2	1
Sofuni et al[14]	203	186	17	3
Ito et al[19]	35	32	3	1
Sofuni et al[15]	98	94	4	0

PEP: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.