Dataset Information

Prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement (PARIS).

ABSTRACT: Video 1Video of the prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement technique.

SUBMITTER: Keane MG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8646081 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement (PARIS).

Keane Margaret G MG Mony Shruti S Wood Laura D LD Kumbhari Vivek V Khashab Mouen A MA

VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20211014 12

Video 1Video of the prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement technique. ...[more]

PMID: 34917867

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention.MethodsIn this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete.FindingsBetween Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups.InterpretationFor preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundA retrospective chart audit was performed to review biliary stent utilisation from January 2020 to January 2021. Non-guideline-based stent insertion was identified in 16% of patients with common bile duct (CBD) stones presenting for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To improve this knowledge-practice gap, a quality improvement (QI) intervention was devised and trialled.AimTo synchronise clinical indications for biliary stent insertion in patients with CBD stones in accordance with published guidelines.MethodsUsing a QI pre-post study design, chart audits were completed and shared with the ERCP team (n=6). Indication for biliary stent insertion was compared to published guidelines assessed by two reviewers independently (kappa statistic calculated). The QI intervention included an education session and quarterly practice audits. An interrupted time series with segmented regression was completed.ResultsA total of 661 patients (337 F), mean age 59±19 years (range 12-98 years), underwent 885 ERCPs during this postintervention period. Of 661 patients, 384 (58%) were referred for CBD stones. A total of 192 biliary stents (105 plastic, 85 metal) were placed during the first ERCP (192/661, 29%), as compared with the preintervention year (223/598, 37%, p=0.2). Furthermore, 13/192 stents (7%) were placed not in accordance with published guidelines (kappa=0.53), compared with 63/223 (28%) in the preintervention year (p<0.0001). A 75% reduction in overall avoidable stent placement was achieved with a direct cost avoidance of $C97 500. For the CBD stone subgroup, there was an 88% reduction in avoidable biliary stent placement compared with the preintervention year (8/384, 2% vs 61/375, 16%, p<0.0001).ConclusionsEducation with audit and feedback supported the closing of a knowledge-to-practice gap for biliary stent insertion during ERCP, especially in patients with CBD stones. This has resulted in a notable reduction of avoidable stent placements and additional follow-up ERCPs and an overall saving of healthcare resources.

Dataset Information

Prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement (PARIS).

Publications

Prophylactic appendiceal retrograde intraluminal stent placement (PARIS).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets