Endoscopic prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Table 2 Studies for the use of pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Study	Design	Indications	PEP rate
			n	Non-stent/stent (%)	P value
Smithline et al[63]	RCT	Biliary ES for SOD, small ducts, or precut	93	18/14	0.229
Aizawa and Ueno[31]	Retrospective case-control	Biliary balloon dilatation for stone	40	6/0	0.110
Fogel et al[18]	Retrospective case-control	Biliary ± pancreatic ES for SOD	436	28.2/13.5	< 0.05
Fazel et al[32]	RCT	Difficult cannulation, biliary ES, SOD	76	28/5	< 0.05
Freeman et al[19]	Prospective case-control	Consecutive high-risk ERCP in which a major papilla PD stent was attempted	225	66.7/14.4	0.060
Harewood et al[58]	RCT	Endoscopic ampullectomy	19	33/0	0.020
Sofuni et al[64]	RCT	All consecutive ERCP (excluding pancreatic cancer, pancreas divisum, PD therapy cases)	201	13.6/3.2	0.020
Tsuchiya et al[66]	RCT	All consecutive ERCP irrespective of risk factors	64	12.5/3.1	> 0.05
Saad et al[70]	Retrospective nonrandomized	Suspected SOD and normal manometry	403	9/2.4	0.006
Lee et al[59]	RCT	Difficult biliary cannulation	101	29.4/12	0.031

ES: Endoscopic sphincterotomy; SOD: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction; RCT: Randomize controlled study; PD: Pancreatic duct; PEP: Post-ERCP pancreatitis.