Antibiotic prophylaxis and post-procedure infectious complications in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with peroral cholangioscopy

Abstract

Background and study aims Single-operator peroral cholangioscopy (SOC) has gained increasing attention in modern biliary and pancreatic therapy and diagnosis. This procedure has shown higher rates of infectious complications than conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); therefore, many guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis (AP). However, whether AP administration decreases infectious or overall adverse events (AEs) has been little studied. We aimed to study whether AP affects post-procedure infectious or overall AEs in ERCP with SOC.

Patients and methods We collected data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP (GallRiks). Of the 124,921 extracted ERCP procedures performed between 2008 and 2021, 1,605 included SOC and represented the study population. Exclusion criteria were incomplete 30-day follow-up, ongoing antibiotic use, and procedures with unspecified indication. Type and dose of antibiotics were not reported. Post-procedure infectious complications and AEs at 30-day follow-up were the main outcomes.

Results AP was administered to 1,307 patients (81.4%). In this group, 3.4% of the patients had infectious complications compared with 3.7% in the non-AP group. The overall AE rates in the AP and non-AP groups were 14.6% and 15.2%, respectively. The incidence of cholangitis was 3.1% in the AP group and 3.4% in the non-AP group. Using multivariable analysis, both infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54–1.57) and AEs (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65–1.16) remained unaffected by AP administration.

Conclusions No reduction in infectious complication rates and AEs was seen with AP administration for SOC. The continued need for AP in SOC remains uncertain.

Keywords

Cholangioscopy - ERC topics - Pancreatoscopy - Stones - Strictures

Publication History

Received: 10 August 2023

Accepted after revision: 06 November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 November 2023

Article published online:
13 December 2023

• References

• 1 Subhash A, Buxbaum JL, Tabibian JH. Peroral cholangioscopy: Update on the state-of-the-art. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 14: 63-76 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i2.63. (PMID: 35316979)
• 2 Yodice M, Choma J, Tadros M. The expansion of cholangioscopy: established and investigational uses of SpyGlass in biliary and pancreatic disorders. Diagnostics (Basel) 2020; 10 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10030132. (PMID: 32121412)
• 3 Dumonceau J-M, Kapral C, Aabakken L. et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 127-149 DOI: 10.1055/a-1075-4080. (PMID: 31863440)
• 4 Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL. et al. ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 251-256
• 5 Lübbe J, Arnelo U, Lundell L. et al. ERCP-guided cholangioscopy using a single-use system: nationwide register-based study of its use in clinical practice. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 802-807 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391990. (PMID: 25910063)
• 6 Almadi MA, Itoi T, Moon JH. et al. Using single-operator cholangioscopy for endoscopic evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures: results from a large multinational registry. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 574-582
• 7 Laleman W, Verraes K, Van Steenbergen W. et al. Usefulness of the single-operator cholangioscopy system SpyGlass in biliary disease: a single-center prospective cohort study and aggregated review. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2223-2232 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5221-2. (PMID: 27604370)
• 8 Lenze F, Bokemeyer A, Gross D. et al. Safety, diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 902-909 DOI: 10.1177/2050640618764943. (PMID: 30023068)
• 9 Minami H, Mukai S, Sofuni A. et al. Clinical outcomes of digital cholangioscopy-guided procedures for the diagnosis of biliary strictures and treatment of difficult bile duct stones: a single-center large cohort study. J Clin Med 2021; 10: 1638 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10081638. (PMID: 33921514)
• 10 Othman MO, Guerrero R, Elhanafi S. et al. A prospective study of the risk of bacteremia in directed cholangioscopic examination of the common bile duct. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 151-157 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.05.018. (PMID: 26116469)
• 11 Pereira P, Santos S, Morais R. et al. Role of peroral cholangioscopy for diagnosis and staging of biliary tumors. Dig Dis 2020; 38: 431-440 DOI: 10.1159/000504910. (PMID: 31940612)
• 12 Thosani N, Zubarik RS, Kochar R. et al. Prospective evaluation of bacteremia rates and infectious complications among patients undergoing single-operator choledochoscopy during ERCP. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 424-431
• 13 Turowski F, Hügle U, Dormann A. et al. Diagnostic and therapeutic single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy with SpyGlass DS: results of a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 3981-3988
• 14 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788 DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01279.x. (PMID: 17509029)
• 15 Chen M, Wang L, Wang Y. et al. Risk factor analysis of post-ERCP cholangitis: A single-center experience. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2018; 17: 55-58 DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2018.01.002. (PMID: 29428105)
• 16 Enochsson L, Thulin A, Österberg J. et al. The Swedish Registry of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks): A Nationwide Registry for Quality Assurance of Gallstone Surgery. JAMA Surg 2013; 148: 471 DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.1221. (PMID: 23325144)
• 17 Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS. et al. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package „dagitty“. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1887-1894 DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw341. (PMID: 28089956)