Skip to content

7 cm vs. 5 cm Pancreatic Stents for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients

7 cm vs. 5 cm Pancreatic Stents for the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High-risk Patients: a Multicentre, Single-blinded, Randomised Controlled Trial

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT04145336
Enrollment
800
Registered
2019-10-30
Start date
2019-10-15
Completion date
2020-10-31
Last updated
2019-10-30

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Post-ERCP Acute Pancreatitis

Keywords

ERCP, PEP, Post-ERCP pancreatitis, Pancreatic duct stent

Brief summary

Acute pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is estimated to be 10% to 15% in high-risk patients. Current guidelines recommend using pancreatic duct stent (PDS) for PEP prevention in high-risk patients, but it is not clear whether stent length will affect the effect of PEP prevention. The longer PDS will remain in the pancreatic duct for a longer period of time, thereby ensuring prolonged decompression with subsequent lowering of the risk for PEP. Findings from two retrospective studies showed that longer PDS was more effective in reducing the risk of post-ERCP hyperamylasemia and the frequency of PEP compared with the shorter PDS. We conducted this trial to test whether 7cm PDS was superior to 5cm PDS in PEP prevention in high-risk patients.

Interventions

DEVICE5cm 5-Fr PDS

High-risk patients receive 5cm 5-Fr PDS

DEVICE7cm 5-Fr PDS

High-risk patients receive 7cm 5-Fr PDS

DRUGIndomethacin

All patients without contraindications should be administrated with rectal indomethacin within 30 min before ERCP.

Sponsors

Air Force Military Medical University, China
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
PREVENTION
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

1. Un-intentional pancreatic duct cannulation: * 2 or more times; * 1 time with more than 10 minutes cannulation. 2. Double-wire technique; 3. High-risk patients: met at least 1 of the major criteria * Clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; * Pancreatic sphincterotomy * Delayed precut sphincterotomy * ≥ 8 cannulation attempts * Pneumatic dilatation of an intact biliary sphincter * Ampullectomy or met at least 2 or more of the minor criteria * Age \< 50; * Female; * Normal TBIL; * ≥ 3 injections of contrast into the pancreatic duct with ≥ 1 injection to the tail of the pancreas;

Exclusion criteria

* Therapeutic PDS; * Acute pancreatitis within 3 days; * With a history of pancreatic surgery or biliary-enteric anastomosis; * Pregnant or breastfeeding women; * unwilling or inability to provide consent.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Post-ERCP Pancreatitis14 daysThe diagnosis of PEP was established if there was new onset of upper abdominal pain associated with an increased serum amylase level of at least 3 times the upper limit of normal range at 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Moderate to severe PEP14 daysThe severity classification of pancreatitis was defined according to the criteria of Cotton et al and the revised Atlanta criteria.
Other complications of ERCP14 daysOther complications include post sphincterotomy bleeding, biliary infection, perforation, and any adverse outcomes possibly related to ERCP that required hospital admission or a prolonged hospital stay for further management.

Countries

China

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026