Download PDF
Endoscopy 2007; 39(9): 793-801
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966723
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study

E.  J.  Williams1 , S.  Taylor2 , P.  Fairclough3 , A.  Hamlyn4 , R.  F.  Logan5 , D.  Martin6, 7 , S.  A.  Riley8 , P.  Veitch9, 10 , M.  L.  Wilkinson11 , P.  R.  Williamson2 , M.  Lombard1
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK
  • 2Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, School of Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
  • 3Department of Gastroenterology, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, UK
  • 4Department of Gastroenterology, Russell’s Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK
  • 5Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
  • 6Department of Radiology, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK
  • 7Royal College of Radiologists
  • 8Department of Gastroenterology, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  • 9Department of Surgery, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK
  • 10Association of Upper GI Surgeons
  • 11Department of Gastroenterology, St Thomas’ Hospital, London, UK
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 30 November 2006

accepted after revision 11 June 2007

Publication Date:
17 August 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de E. J. Williams et al., pp. 793Endoscopy 2007; 39(09): 931-931
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1308868

Background and study aims: Analyses of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complication are often constrained by the number of endpoints observed. This large-scale study aimed to identify the principal risk factors for ERCP complication.

Patients and methods: This was a prospective multicenter study of ERCP complications, based in five English regions. An exploratory univariable analysis of patients’ first recorded procedures identified potentially important patient- and procedure-related factors. For overall complications and pancreatitis, variables significant in univariable analysis were included in multiple regression.

Results: A total of 66 centers collected data on 5264 ERCPs, performed on 4561 patients. A therapeutic intervention was attempted in 3447/4561 (76 %) of patients as part of their first recorded ERCP. Following first recorded ERCP, 230 patients (5.0 %) suffered ≥ 1 complication: pancreatitis in 74 (1.6 %), cholangitis in 48 (1.0 %), hemorrhage in 40 (0.9 %), perforation in 20 (0.4 %), and miscellaneous in 54 (1.2 %). Significant factors from multiple regression were included in a multi-level analysis, which incorporated variables measured at the level of the endoscopist and hospital. For overall complication, risk factors (P value, odds ratio [OR], 95 % confidence interval [CI]) were: cannulation attempts > 1 (P = 0.094, OR 1.32, 95 % CI 0.95 - 1.83), precut (P = 0.033, OR 1.55, 95 % CI 1.04 - 2.32), and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (P = 0.121, OR 1.97, 95 % CI 0.84 - 4.64). For pancreatitis, risk factors (Pvalue, OR, and 95 % CI) were: cannulation attempts > 1 (P = 0.0001, OR 3.14, 95 % CI 1.74 - 5.67), female sex (P < 0.001, OR 2.22, 95 % CI 1.43 - 3.45), age (P < 0.002, OR 1.09 per 5 year decrease, 95 % CI 1.03 - 1.15), and performance in a district (as opposed to university) hospital (P = 0.034, OR 2.41, 95 % CI 1.08 - 5.41).

Conclusion: Careful patient selection combined with skilled cannulation minimizes complications. Higher-risk procedures should be performed in specialist centers.

References

  • 1 Freeman M L. Adverse outcomes of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 (6 Suppl) S273-S282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A. et al . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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
  • 4 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
  • 5 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
  • 6 Rabenstein T, Schneider H T, Bulling D. et al . 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.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 10-19
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Neoptolemos J P, Shaw D E, Carr-Locke D L. A multivariate analysis of preoperative risk factors in patients with common bile duct stones. Implications for treatment.  Ann Surg. 1989;  209 157-161
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mehta S N, Pavone E, Barkun J S. et al . Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 457-463
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tzovaras G, Shukla P, Kow L. et al . What are the risks of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?.  Aust N Z J Surg. 2000;  70 778-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Motte S, Deviere J, Dumonceau J M. et al . Risk factors for septicemia following endoscopic biliary stenting.  Gastroenterology. 1991;  101 1374-1381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Boender J, Nix G A, de Ridder M A. et al . Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate.  Endoscopy. 1994;  26 209-216
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nelson D B, Freeman M L. Major hemorrhage from endoscopic sphincterotomy: risk factor analysis.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 1994;  19 283-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Maldonado M E, Brady P G, Mamel J J. et al . Incidence of pancreatitis in patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM).  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 387-390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S. et al . Complications of ERCP: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 721-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
  • 16 Aronson N, Flamm C R, Bohn R L. et al . Evidence-based assessment: patient, procedure, or operator factors associated with ERCP complications.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 (6 Suppl) S294-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Williams E J, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al . Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large scale prospective survey of ERCP practice.  Gut. 2007;  56 821-829
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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
  • 19 Concato J, Feinstein A R, Holford T R. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 201-210
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hosmer D, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. 2nd edn. New York; John Wiley and Sons Inc 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 21 American Society of Anesthesiology .http://Available from URL: http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm (accessed 9 March 2006)
  • 22 Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S. et al . Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 830-834
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Huibregtse K. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy and their prevention.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 961-963
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Binmoeller K F, 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
  • 25 Foutch P G. A prospective assessment of results for needle-knife papillotomy and standard endoscopic sphincterotomy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  41 25-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kasmin F E, Cohen D, Batra S. et al . Needle-knife sphincterotomy in a tertiary referral center: efficacy and complications.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 48-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Varadarajulu S, Kilgore M L, Wilcox C M. et al . Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 338-347
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Perini R F, Sadurski R, Cotton P B. et al . Post-sphincterotomy bleeding after the introduction of microprocessor-controlled electrosurgery: does the new technology make the difference?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  61 53-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G. et al . Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 544-550
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

M. Lombard, MD

Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Prescot Street

Liverpool, L7 8XP

UK

Fax: +44-151-7065832

Email: martin.lombard@rlbuht.nhs.uk