Dataset Information

Endoscopic pancreatic duct stenting for pain palliation in selected pancreatic cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Abdominal pain is a debilitating symptom affecting ∼80% of pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Pancreatic duct (PD) decompression has been reported to alleviate this pain, although this practice has not been widely adopted. We aimed to evaluate the role, efficacy, and safety of endoscopic PD decompression for palliation of PC post-prandial obstructive-type pain.

Methods

A systematic review until 7 October 2020 was performed. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality.

Results

We identified 12 publications with a total of 192 patients with PC presenting with abdominal pain, in whom PD decompression was attempted, and was successful in 167 patients (mean age 62.5 years, 58.7% males). The use of plastic stents was reported in 159 patients (95.2%). All included studies reported partial or complete improvement in pain levels after PD stenting, with an improvement rate of 93% (95% confidence interval, 79%-100%). The mean duration of pain improvement was 94 ± 16 days. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events (AEs) were post-sphincterotomy bleeding (1.8%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (0.6%), and hemosuccus pancreaticus (0.6%). AEs were not reported in two patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided PD decompression. In the 167 patients with technical success, the stent-migration and stent-occlusion rates were 3.6% and 3.0%, respectively. No AE-related mortality was reported. The methodological quality assessment showed the majority of the studies having low or unclear quality.

Conclusion

In this exploratory analysis, endoscopic PD drainage may be an effective and safe option in selected patients for the management of obstructive-type PC pain. However, a randomized-controlled trial is needed to delineate the role of this invasive practice.

SUBMITTER: Siddappa PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8128017 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Conventional endoscopic duct clearance may not be possible in up to 10%-15% of common bile duct stones (CBDS). Sphincterotomy and biliary drainage by endoprosthesis have for many years been the mainstay of management in irretrievable stones. Recent years have seen the advent of sphincteroplasty or cholangioscopically-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) permitting duct clearance in majority of cases. However, when bile duct clearance is not possible, options include long-term stenting followed by elective stent exchange (ESE) 6-12 monthly or permanent stent insertion (PSI) in selected cases, but it is not clear which management strategy among ESE and PSI is preferable.A retrospective review of all patients in Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust who underwent plastic stent insertion for biliary access for difficult CBDS from January 2006 to December 2011 was undertaken. Adult patients with irretrievable CBDS who had plastic stent insertions throughout the follow-up period were included. Patients who underwent PSI and ESE annually were retrospectively reviewed to determine the long-term outcomes. A detailed systematic review was also performed, examining the outcomes of CBDS managed with stents.During the study period, 674 patients underwent 1769 biliary-stent-related procedures; of which, 246 patients met our inclusion criteria. 201 patients had subsequent duct clearance. 45 patients were, therefore, included in the final analysis, 28 of whom underwent annual ESEs and 17 PSIs. Patients in the PSI group had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores compared with the ESE group. In the PSI group, 9/17 patients presented acutely with blocked stents, 5 of whom presented within 12 months. 2/9 patients were severely ill and died within a fortnight following the repeat endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In the ESE group, 4/28 patients had duct clearance in subsequent ERCPs, 1/28 patient presented with a blocked stent, and no biliary-related deaths were observed. The mean numbers of ERCPs performed were 0.52 and 1.95 in the PSI and ESE groups, respectively.Over 50% of patients treated with long-term stenting re-presented acutely with stent blockage, though many of these were before 12 months, meaning planned stent exchange would not have affected the outcome. Duct clearance using all possible modalities is the preferred option, but where not possible, management with biliary stenting either with elective exchange or permanent stenting remains a possibility for carefully selected patients, though maybe best suited to those with limited life expectancy.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of routine ureteric stent placement after ureteroscopy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesCochrane controlled trials register (2006 issue 2), Embase, and Medline (1966 to 31 March 2006), without language restrictions. Review methods We included all randomised controlled trials that reported various outcomes with or without stenting after ureteroscopy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses used both fixed and random effects models with dichotomous data reported as relative risk and continuous data as a weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials (reporting 831 participants) were identified. The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms was significantly higher in participants who had a stent inserted (relative risk 2.25, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 4.43, for dysuria; 2.00, 1.11 to 3.62, for frequency or urgency) after ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in postoperative requirement for analgesia, urinary tract infections, stone free rate, and ureteric strictures in the two groups. Because of marked heterogeneity, formal pooling of data was not possible for some outcomes such as flank pain. A pooled analysis showed a reduced likelihood of unplanned medical visits or admission to hospital in the group with stents (0.53, 0.17 to 1.60), although this difference was not significant. None of the trials reported on health related quality of life. Cost reported in three randomised controlled trials favoured the group without stents. The overall quality of trials was poor and reporting of outcomes inconsistent.ConclusionsPatients with stents after ureteroscopy have significantly higher morbidity in the form of irritative lower urinary symptoms with no influence on stone free rate, rate of urinary tract infection, requirement for analgesia, or long term ureteric stricture formation. Because of the marked heterogeneity and poor quality of reporting of the included trials, the place of stenting in the management of patients after uncomplicated ureteroscopy remains unclear.