Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Recruiting
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05725590 |
Other study ID # |
2022-0976 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Recruiting |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
February 2, 2023 |
Est. completion date |
August 2026 |
Study information
Verified date |
February 2023 |
Source |
Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University |
Contact |
Sheng Yan, Doctor |
Phone |
13957161680 |
Email |
shengyan[@]zju.edu.cn |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
The prognostic value of external vs internal pancreatic duct stents after
pancreaticoduodenectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits of
external and internal stents using the Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score in both
high-risk and low-risk patients with regard to the incidence of clinically relevant
postoperative pancreatic fistula.
Description:
Pancreatic cancer, with its associated poor prognosis, is one of the most insidious and
lethal cancers globally. Indeed, pancreatic cancer has been listed as the fourth leading
cause of cancer-related deaths in developed countries, and it may replace colorectal cancer
as the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths by 2030. Pancreaticoduodenectomy is the
standard treatment for periampullary carcinoma, especially pancreatic head tumors. However,
the incidence of postoperative complications, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula,
remains as high as 25%-50%, which limits the dissemination of pancreaticoduodenectomy.
An external pancreatic duct stent is one of the methods used to prevent pancreatic fistula. A
large number of studies, including prospective randomized trials as well as meta-analyses,
have shown that external pancreatic duct stents significantly decrease the rate of pancreatic
fistula and shorten the length of hospital stay. Paradoxically, several studies have shown
that external pancreatic duct stents have no effect and may even increase the incidence of
postoperative pancreatic fistula. In a meta-analysis, Dong et al. observed that the use of an
external pancreatic duct stent was associated with a significantly lower incidence of
pancreatic fistula in patients at high risk for pancreatic fistula compared with an internal
stent, but there was no definitive conclusion because of the low quality of the evidence.
In 2019, Mungroop et al. proposed the Updated Alternative Fistula Risk Score (ua-FRS)
according to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), which
quantitatively validated the risk of pancreatic fistula and assessed the benefits of
pancreatic duct stents in patients at different levels of risk. Moreover, ISGPS redefined the
classification criteria for pancreatic fistula (Grade A) as a biochemical leak, which had no
significant clinical impact on the clinical prognosis. In addition, the position statement by
ISGPS indicated that, due to the lack of high-quality evidence, the pancreatic duct stent was
not routinely recommended during pancreaticoenteric anastomosis, but external stenting can be
considered in high-risk glands. Therefore, it is necessary to systematically re-investigate
the safety and effectiveness of external pancreatic duct stents for the prevention and
treatment of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) in both high-risk
and low-risk patients. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the differences
between external and internal pancreatic stents using the ua-FRS scoring system, based on the
hypothesis that the use of an external stent in high-risk patients could decrease the rates
of CR-POPF compared with an internal stent after pancreaticoduodenectomy.