FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2013780977> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2013780977 endingPage "370" @default.
• W2013780977 startingPage "369" @default.
• W2013780977 abstract "It has been 20 years since the first report of a randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stents as a strategy to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis [1]. While sometimes technically challenging, and potentially associated with adverse consequences especially if failed [2], evidence for efficacy and effectiveness of pancreatic stenting has continued to mount. The practice has become increasingly widespread such that placement of pancreatic stents is now considered to be standard of care for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients at high risk of this potentially severe complication [3]. As a result, it has seemed as if the entire endoscopic world has been steadily moving in the direction of accepting the concept of the technique, all the while refining equipment and methods. Skeptics have remained, in part because of perception of the difficulty of pancreatic stent placement and questions about its effectiveness. This doubt has been partially fueled by inconsistent findings of meta-analyses, largely because of heterogeneity of available studies, and limited numbers of prior randomized trials. Meta-analyses generally have shown either efficacy of pancreatic stents for prevention of mild-to-moderate pancreatitis or for severe pancreatitis, but not for both. Pharmacologic prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis has been a ‘‘holy grail’’ that has been sought for many years. In a recent publication from the USA, an inexpensive, non-toxic solution might seem to have been found: rectal indomethacin given at a dose of 100 mg after ERCP in high-risk patients reduced risk of pancreatitis [4]. Although apparently effective in reducing risk of postERCP pancreatitis in patients with and without pancreatic stents, post hoc analysis suggested that indomethacin was not effective either in the very highest risk group (type III sphincter of Oddi dysfunction) or in certain individual institutions. Partly as a result of this paper, there has been a recent push-back to the steady progress in establishing pancreatic stents as standard of care. In the current context, Professor Mazaki et al. [5] are to be congratulated for performing the highest quality and most thorough meta-analysis to date of pancreatic stents for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Unlike other analyses, they included all of the recent randomized trials, including two trials involving patients at mixed risk rather than only those at high risk. As a result, their analysis demonstrated that overall incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis decreased from 19 % in the control group to 7 % in the pancreatic stent group. Theirs is the first meta-analysis with sufficient power to demonstrate that pancreatic stents are effective in preventing both mild to moderate and severe post-ERCP pancreatitis. So who should receive pancreatic stents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis? The current evidence supports their use in all patients at high risk of this complication, for which criteria have been fairly well established. These include the ever growing list of patient-related and procedure-related risk factors [6], the latest of which is pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation [7]. It is likely that a randomized trial will be performed to compare rectal indomethacin alone with rectal indomethacin plus pancreatic stents. It is this author’s opinion that for high-risk patients, such as those undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy for recurrent pancreatitis or sphincter of Oddi This comment refers to the article available at doi:10.1007/s00535-013-0806-1." @default.
• W2013780977 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2013780977 creator A5041378628 @default.
• W2013780977 date "2013-09-10" @default.
• W2013780977 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2013780977 title "Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: the evidence is irrefutable" @default.
• W2013780977 cites W1978775180 @default.
• W2013780977 cites W1986907213 @default.
• W2013780977 cites W2017449390 @default.
• W2013780977 cites W2092103192 @default.
• W2013780977 cites W2100650200 @default.
• W2013780977 cites W2103655428 @default.
• W2013780977 doi "https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-013-0878-y" @default.
• W2013780977 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24531908" @default.
• W2013780977 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2013780977 type Work @default.
• W2013780977 sameAs 2013780977 @default.
• W2013780977 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W2013780977 countsByYear W20137809772015 @default.
• W2013780977 countsByYear W20137809772016 @default.
• W2013780977 countsByYear W20137809772019 @default.
• W2013780977 countsByYear W20137809772022 @default.
• W2013780977 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2013780977 hasAuthorship W2013780977A5041378628 @default.
• W2013780977 hasBestOaLocation W20137809771 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C170835558 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C181199279 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C185592680 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C2775967933 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C2780120127 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C2780140570 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C2909698591 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C41260117 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C523026621 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C61434518 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConcept C90924648 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C126322002 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C170835558 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C181199279 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C185592680 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C2775967933 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C2780120127 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C2780140570 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C2909698591 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C41260117 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C523026621 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C55493867 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C61434518 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C71924100 @default.
• W2013780977 hasConceptScore W2013780977C90924648 @default.
• W2013780977 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2013780977 hasLocation W20137809771 @default.
• W2013780977 hasLocation W20137809772 @default.
• W2013780977 hasOpenAccess W2013780977 @default.
• W2013780977 hasPrimaryLocation W20137809771 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W12731334 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W131665113 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W137907177 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W161938409 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W16674649 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W1971688434 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W249898982 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W2603334314 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W73606607 @default.
• W2013780977 hasRelatedWork W75968386 @default.
• W2013780977 hasVolume "49" @default.
• W2013780977 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2013780977 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2013780977 magId "2013780977" @default.
• W2013780977 workType "article" @default.