Endoscopy 2011; 43(4): 331-336
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1256194
Original article
 
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Post-ERCP pancreatitis in 2364 ERCP procedures: is intraductal ultrasonography another risk factor?

T.  Meister1 [*] , H.  Heinzow1 [*] , A.  Heinecke2 , R.  Hoehr1 , W.  Domschke1 , D.  Domagk1
  • 1Department of Medicine B, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
  • 2Institute for Medical Informatics and Biomathematics, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 21 December 2009

accepted after revision 11 October 2010

Publication Date:
16 March 2011 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de T. Meister et al., pp. 331Endoscopy 2011; 43(04): 463-463
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291797

Background and study aims: Acute pancreatitis is considered a relevant major complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); according to literature data, the incidence varies between 1.5 % and 17 %. In the present study, we aimed to identify potentially new, hitherto unknown risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Patients and methods: A total of 2364 ERCP procedures performed in 1275 patients during the years 2004 – 2008 were included in the study. Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as acute abdominal pain within 48 hours following ERCP with at least 3-fold elevated levels of serum lipase and a requirement for analgesic drugs for at least 24 hours. The severity of the pancreatitis was determined using the Imrie score.

Results: In our cohort study a total of 54 different patients (2.3 %) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. In 50 of these patients (92.6 %) the pancreatitis was mild; in 54 (7.4 %) it was severe. Patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis had highly significantly lower bilirubin levels than patients who did not have post-ERCP pancreatitis (P < 0.001). Length of hospital stay, duration of analgesics, and need for analgesic drugs were significantly higher in patients suffering from severe pancreatitis (P ≤ 0.01). In multivariate analysis, among other, already well-described risk factors we identified intraductal ultrasonography as another risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis, with a hazard ratio of 2.41 (P = 0.004).

Conclusions: According to our retrospective data, intraductal ultrasonography seems to be another independent risk factor for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, which needs to be further elucidated in prospective studies.

References

  • 1 Sherman S. ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 303-305
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Freeman M L, Overby C, Qi D. Pancreatic stent insertion: consequences of failure and results of a modified technique to maximize success.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 8-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Testoni P A. Simple measures to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?.  Gut. 2008;  57 1197-1198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fujita N, Noda Y, Kobayashi G et al. Endoscopic approach to early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.  Pancreas. 2004;  28 279-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hawes R H. Diagnostic and therapeutic uses of ERCP in pancreatic and biliary tract malignancies.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 (6 Suppl) S201-S205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Fukuda Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Sakai Y et al. Diagnostic utility of peroral cholangioscopy for various bile-duct lesions.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 374-382
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cotton P B, Lehman G, Vennes J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cheng C L, Sherman S, Watkins J L et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Freeman M L, Nelson D B, Sherman S et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pieper-Bigelow C, Strocchi A, Levitt M D. Where does serum amylase come from and where does it go?.  Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 1990;  19 793-810
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Freeman M L, DiSario J A, Nelson D B et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 425-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Williams E J, Taylor S, Fairclough P et al. Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 793-801
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wilson C, Heath D I, Imrie C W. Prediction of outcome in acute pancreatitis: a comparative study of APACHE II, clinical assessment and multiple factor scoring systems.  Br J Surg. 1990;  77 1260-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Knaus W A, Draper E A, Wagner D P et al. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system.  Crit Care Med. 1985;  13 818-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Faigel D, Baron T, Lewis B et al. Ensuring competence in endoscopy. Prepared by the ASGE Taskforce on Ensuring Competence in Endoscopy and American College of Gastroenterology Executive and Practice Management Committees. ASGE policy and procedures manual for gastrointestinal endoscopy: guidelines for training and practice on CD-ROM. 2005: 1-36
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Cotton P B, Garrow D A, Gallagher J et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;  70 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bailey A A, Bourke M J, Williams S J et al. A prospective randomized trial of cannulation technique in ERCP: effects on technical success and post-ERCP pancreatitis.  Endoscopy. 2008;  40 296-301
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vandervoort J, Soetikno R M, Tham T C et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 652-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Matsubayashi H, Fukutomi A, Kanemoto H et al. Risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic biliary drainage.  HPB (Oxford). 2009;  11 222-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Domagk D, Wessling J, Reimer P et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, intraductal ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in bile duct strictures: a prospective comparison of imaging diagnostics with histopathological correlation.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;  99 1684-1689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Tamada K, Ido K, Ueno N et al. Preoperative staging of extrahepatic bile duct cancer with intraductal ultrasonography.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;  90 239-246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tamada K, Nagai H, Yasuda Y et al. Transpapillary intraductal US prior to biliary drainage in the assessment of longitudinal spread of extrahepatic bile duct carcinoma.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  53 300-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Baron T H, Clain J E et al. Evaluation of indeterminate bile duct strictures by intraductal US.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 372-379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Catanzaro A, Pfau P, Isenberg G A et al. Clinical utility of intraductal US for evaluation of choledocholithiasis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  57 648-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Menzel J, Hoepffner N, Sulkowski U et al. Polypoid tumors of the major duodenal papilla: preoperative staging with intraductal US, EUS, and CT – a prospective, histopathologically controlled study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 349-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Domagk D, Wessling J, Conrad B et al. Which imaging modalities should be used for biliary strictures of unknown aetiology?.  Gut. 2007;  56 1032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Domagk D, Diallo R, Menzel J et al. Endosonographic and histopathological staging of extrahepatic bile duct cancer: time to leave the present TNM-classification?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 594-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tamada K, Tomiyama T, Wada S et al. Endoscopic transpapillary bile duct biopsy with the combination of intraductal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of biliary strictures.  Gut. 2002;  50 326-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Domagk D, Poremba C, Dietl K H et al. Endoscopic transpapillary biopsies and intraductal ultrasonography in the diagnostics of bile duct strictures: a prospective study.  Gut. 2002;  51 240-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Menzel J, Poremba C, Dietl K H et al. Preoperative diagnosis of bile duct strictures – comparison of intraductal ultrasonography with conventional endosonography.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2000;  35 77-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

1 The first two authors, T. Meister and H. Heinzow, contributed equally to this work.

D. DomagkMD 

Department of Medicine B
University of Münster

Albert-Schweitzer-Str. 33
48149 Münster
Germany

Fax: +49-251-8347576

Email: domagkd@uni-muenster.de