Download PDF
Endoscopy 2000; 32(1): 10-19
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-138
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Analysis of the Risk Factors Associated with Endoscopic Sphincterotomy Techniques: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study, with Emphasis on the Reduced Risk of Acute Pancreatitis with Low-Dose Anticoagulation Treatment

T. Rabenstein, H. T. Schneider, D. Bulling, M. Nicklas, A. Katalinic, E. G. Hahn, P. Martus, C. Ell
  • Dept. of Medicine I, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: The aim of the present study was to analyze the risk factors associated with complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES).

Patients and Methods: In all consecutive endoscopic sphincterotomies carried out between September 1994 and December 1996, the possible risk factors (12 patient-related factors and 12 procedure-related ones), as well as the concomitant medical treatment, indications, techniques, and success of endoscopic sphincterotomy were evaluated prospectively. Risk factors were analyzed on an exploratory basis using univariate methods. “Potential risk factors” (univariate, P < 0.1) underwent multivariate analysis to determine independent “risk factors” (multivariate, P < 0.05). In addition, the complication rate was calculated according to the number of potential risk factors present.

Results: A total of 438 patients who underwent ES were analyzed. Complications occurred in 7.5 % (n = 33; acute pancreatitis 4.3 %, hemorrhage 2.3 %, cholangitis 0.9 %, technical 0.2 %). Statistical analysis of the complications identified three independent risk factors (coagulopathy, patient age (≤ 60 years, pancreas divisum), and one protective factor (pancreatic duct obstruction). The frequency of acute pancreatitis was increased by two independent risk factors (pancreas divisum, ES frequency < 40 procedures/year) and was reduced if low-dose anticoagulation (unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin) was administered (0.9 %, one of 115 vs. 5.8 %, 18 of 313; P < 0.05). The effect of anticoagulation was not confounded by the presence or absence of other potential risk factors for acute pancreatitis. Neither the risk nor the severity of hemorrhage were increased by low-dose anticoagulation. Due to the low number of events, only potential risk factors for hemorrhage were identified (coagulopathy, intensive-care treatment). The overall complication rate and the incidence of pancreatitis and hemorrhage increased significantly depending on the number of simultaneous potential risk factors present (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Patients at risk for complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy can be identified by risk factor analysis. These data suggest the hypothesis that low-dose anticoagulation prior to endoscopic sphincterotomy reduces the risk of acute pancreatitis after sphincterotomy.

References

  • 1 Cotton PB, Lehmann GA, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 338-393
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ell C, Rabenstein T, Ruppert T, et al. 20 Jahre endoskopische Papillotomie - Analyse der Erlanger Erfahrungen bei 2752 Patienten.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1995;  120 163-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Hahn EG, et al. 25 years of endoscopic sphincterotomy in Erlangen: assessment of experience in the treatment of 3498 patients.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 (Suppl 2) 201
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Huibregtse K. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy and their prevention.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 961-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Classen M, Demling L. Endoskopische Sphinkterotomie der Papilla Vateri und Steinextraktion aus dem Ductus choledochus.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 1974;  99 496-497
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kawai KY, Ahasaha K, Murakami M. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of Vater.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1974;  20 148-150
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Riemann JF, Seuberth K, Demling L. Mechanical lithotripsy of common bile duct stones.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1984;  30 140-141
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rabenstein T, Ruppert T, Schneider HT, Hahn EG, Ell C. Benefits and risks of needle-knife papillotomy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 207-211
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Nicklas M, Hahn EG, Ell C. Significance of the endoscopist on success and complications of EST: comparison of experienced and learning endoscopists.   Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  50 628-636
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ell C, Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, et al. Safety and efficacy of pancreatic sphincterotomy in chronic pancreatitis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 244-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Classen M. Endoscopic papillotomy. In: Sivak MV (ed). Gastroenterologic endoscopy.  Philadelphia; Saunders, 1987: 631-653
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Huibregtse K, Katon RM, Tytgat GNJ. Precut papillotomy via fine needle-knife papillotome: a safe and effective technique.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1986;  32 403-405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical methods in medical research. 3rd ed. Oxford; Blackwell Science 1994: 311
  • 15 Hochberg Y, Tamhane AC (eds). Multiple comparison procedures.  New York; Wiley, 1987
  • 16 Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. The risk of determining risk with multivariate models.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 201-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hosmer DW Jr, Lemeshow S (eds). Applied logistic regression.  New York; Wiley, 1989
  • 18 Boender J, Nix GAJJ, de Ridder MAJ, et al. Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate.  Endoscopy. 1994;  26 209-216
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lambert ME, Betts CD, Hill J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy: the whole truth.  Br J Surg. 1991;  78 473-476
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sherman S, Ruffolo TA, Hawes RH, Lehman GA. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: a prospective series with emphasis on the increased risk associated with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and nondilated bile ducts.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  101 1068-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Vaira D, Ainley C, Williams S, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy in 1000 consecutive patients.  Lancet. 1989;  8660 431-434
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Wojtun S, Gil J, Gietka W, Gil M. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: a prospective single-center study on the short-term and long-term treatment results in 483 patients.  Endoscopy. 1997;  29 258-265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS, et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: a prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Ann Intern Med. 1996;  125 983-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jowell PS, Branch MS, Afforti J, et al. At least 180 ERCPs are needed to attain competence in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP [abstract].  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Freeman ML. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a review.  Endoscopy. 1997;  29 228-297
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schneider HT, May A, Benninger J, et al. Piezoelectric shock wave lithotripsy of pancreatic duct stones.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 2042-2048
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cremer M, Devière J, Delhaye M, et al. Stenting in severe chronic pancreatitis: results of medium-term follow-up in seventy-six patients.  Endoscopy. 1991;  23 171-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kozarek RA, Ball TJ, Patterson DJ, et al. Endoscopic pancreatic duct sphincterotomy: indications, technique and analysis of results.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;  40 592-598
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Smits ME, Rauw EAS, Tytgat GJ, Huibregtse K. Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic stones in patients with chronic pancreatitis.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 556-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dumonceau JM, Devière J, Le Moine O, et al. Endoscopic pancreatic drainage in chronic pancreatitis associated with ductal stones: long-term results.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 547-555
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Slot WB, Schoeman MN, Disario JA, et al. Needle-knife sphincterotomy as a precut procedure: a retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 334-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Binmoeller KF, Seifert H, Gerke H, et al. Papillary roof incision using the Erlangen-type pre-cut papillotome to achieve selective bile duct cannulation.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 689-695
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Dowset JF, Polydorou AA, Vaira D, et al. Needle-knife papillotomy: how safe and how effective?.  Gut. 1990;  31 905-908
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Foutch PG. A prospective assessment of results for needle-knife papillotomy and standard endoscopic sphincterotomy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  41 25-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Baillie J. Needle-knife papillotomy revisited.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 282-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Siegel HJ. Precut papillotomy: a method to improve success of ERCP and papillotomy.  Endoscopy. 1980;  20 130-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Siegel HJ, Ben-Zvi JS, Pullano W. The needle-knife: a valuable tool in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1989;  35 499-503
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Vandervoort J, Carr-Locke DL. Needle-knife access papillotomy: an unfairly maligned technique?.  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 365-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tham TCK, Vandervoort L, Wong RCK, et al. Therapeutic ERCP in outpatients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 225-230
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Vandervoort J, Tham TCK, Wong RCK, et al. Prospective analysis of risk factors for pancreatitis after diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP [abstract].  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 440
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Vandervoort J, Tham TCK, Wong RCK, et al. Prospective study of post-ERCP complications following diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP [abstract].  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 441
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Booth FV, Doerr RJ, Khalafi RS, et al. Surgical management of complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy with precut papillotomy.  Am J Surg. 1990;  159 132-135
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tweedle DEF, Martin FF. Needle-knife papillotomy for endoscopic sphincterotomy and cholangiography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 518-521
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Shakoor T, Geenen JE. Precut papillotomy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;  38 623-627
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cotton PB. Precut papillotomy: a risky technique for experts only.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1989;  35 578-579
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Chen YK, Foliente RL, Santoro MJ, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis: increased risk associated with nondilated bile ducts and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 327-333
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Sherman S, Lehmann GA. ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis.  Pancreas. 1991;  6 350-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Geenen JE, Hogan WJ, Dodds WJ, et al. Long-term results of endoscopic sphincterotomy for treating patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.  Gastroenterology. 1989;  92 1401-1405
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Tittobello A. Diagnosis and prevention of post-EST pancreatitis.  Endoscopy. 1997;  29 285-287
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Toulon P, Chadeuf G, Bouillot JL, et al. Involvement of heparin cofactor II in chymotrypsin neutralization and in pancreatic proteinase-antiproteinase interaction during acute pancreatitis in man.  Eur J Clin Invest. 1991;  21 303-309
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Kosidlo S, Gabryelewicz A, Prokopowicz J, Prokopowicz K. Pancreatic proteolytic and inhibitory activity during acute experimental pancreatitis in rats with reference to heparin treatment.  Mater Med Pol. 1986;  18 136-143
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Gabryelewicz A, Kosidlo S, Prokopowicz J, Prokopowicz K. Does heparin modify protease-antiprotease balance in acute experimental pancreatitis in rats?.  Hepatogastroenterology. 1986;  33 79-92
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bleeker WK, Agterberg J, Rigter G, et al. Protective effect of antithrombin III in acute experimental pancreatitis in rats.  Dig Dis Sci. 1992;  37 280-285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Suda K. Histopathological study on fat necrosis with comparison between agonal stage and acute pancreatitis.  Rinsho Byori. 1991;  39 977-980
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

M.D. T. Rabenstein

Medizinische Klinik I mit Poliklinik Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Krankenhausstrasse 12

91054 Erlangen, Germany

Phone: +49-9131-8536909

Email: Thomas.Rabenstein@med1.med.uni-erlangen.de