Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology
Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 1/2014

01.01.2014 | REVIEW ARTICLE

Complications of ERCP

verfasst von: Nalini M. Guda, Duvvuru Nageshwar Reddy, Ajay Kumar

Erschienen in: Indian Journal of Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 1/2014

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed commonly for therapy. Its role in pancreaticobiliary diagnostic imaging has significantly decreased over time. Despite advances in our knowledge of the risk factors, complications, (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis), remain a significant problem. This review highlights the risk factors as related to the patient, procedure and the endoscopist, and the possible means to prevent complications. The best way to avoid any complication is “to avoid any procedure where the indication is not strong” and especially to refrain from doing diagnostic ERCP when alternate noninvasive imaging such as magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is available.
Literatur
1.
Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–18.PubMedCrossRef
2.
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.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, et al. Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate. Endoscopy. 1994;26:209–16.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Chen YK, Foliente RL, Santoro MJ, Walter MH, Collen MJ. Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis: increased risk associated with nondilated bile ducts and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:327–33.PubMed
5.
Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I, Tsalis K, Demetriades C, Betsis D. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: patient-related and operative risk factors. Endoscopy. 2002;34:286–92.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383–93.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complication study. The Multicenter Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (MESH) study group. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49:580–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:425–34.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:845–64.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Friedland S, Soetikno RM, Vandervoort J, Montes H, Tham T, Carr-Locke DL. Bedside scoring system to predict the risk of developing pancreatitis following ERCP. Endoscopy. 2002;34:483–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:417–23.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS, Bouchard S, Barkun AN. Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy. 1998;30:457–63.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, 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;32:10–9.PubMedCrossRef
14.
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;101:1068–75.PubMed
15.
Tzovaras G, Shukla P, Kow L, Mounkley D, Wilson T, Toouli J. What are the risks of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Aust N Z J Surg. 2000;70:778–82.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:652–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Newcomer MK, Jowell PS, Cotton PB. Underestimation of adverse events following ERCP: a prospective 30 day follow up study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995; 41: 408. (Abstract).
18.
Andriulli A, Clemente R, Solmi L, et al. Gabexate or somatostatin administration before ERCP in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:488–95.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Maldonado ME, Brady PG, Mamel JJ, Robinson B. Incidence of pancreatitis in patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM). Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:387–90.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Bedford RA, et al. A comparison of nonionic versus ionic contrast media: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Study Group. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:312–6.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Cheon YK, Cho KB, Watkins JL, et al. Frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis correlated with extent of pancreatic ductal opacification. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65:385–93.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Patel R, Tarnasky P, Hennesst WS, et al. Does stenting after pancreatic sphincterotomy reduce post-ERCP Pancreatitis in patients with prior biliary sphincterotomy? Preliminary results of a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 49, AB80. (Abstract).
23.
Buscaglia JM, Simons BW, Prosser BJ, et al. Severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis directly proportional to the invasiveness of endoscopic intervention: a pilot study in a canine model. Endoscopy. 2008;40:506–12.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Elton E, Howell DA, Parsons WG, Qaseem T, Hanson BL. Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy: indications, outcome, and a safe stentless technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:240–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Guda N, Freeman M. Only if needed and as minimally as possible. Animal model for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a step in the right direction. Endoscopy. 2008;40:521–2.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni PA. Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2003;35:830–4.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Goff JS. Common bile duct sphincter of Oddi stenting in patients with suspected sphincter dysfunction. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:586–9.PubMed
28.
Cotton PB. Precut papillotomy—a risky technique for experts only. Gastrointest Endosc. 1989;35:578–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Repici A, et al. Timing of precut procedure does not influence success rate and complications of ERCP procedure: a prospective randomized comparative study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69 (3 Pt 1):473–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Rabenstein T, Ruppert T, Schneider HT, Hahn EG, Ell C. Benefits and risks of needle-knife papillotomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;46:207–11.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Sriram PV, Rao GV, Nageshwar Reddy D. The precut—when, where and how? A review. Endoscopy. 2003;35:S24–30.
32.
Testoni PA, Giussani A, Vailati C, Testoni S, Di LM, Mariani A. Precut sphincterotomy, repeated cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with bile duct stone disease. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:792–6.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Vandervoort J, Carr-Locke DL. Needle-knife access papillotomy: an unfairly maligned technique? Endoscopy. 1996;28:365–6.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Harewood GC, Baron TH. An assessment of the learning curve for precut biliary sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97:1708–12.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Fockens P, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bileduct stones. Lancet. 1997;349:1124–9.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Fujita N, Maguchi H, Komatsu Y, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation for bile duct stones: a prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:151–5.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Komatsu Y, Kawabe T, Toda N, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of common bile duct stones: experience of 226 cases. Endoscopy. 1998;30:12–7.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Mathuna PM, White P, Clarke E, Merriman R, Lennon JR, Crowe J. Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;42:468–74.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Minami A, Nakatsu T, Uchida N, et al. Papillary dilation vs sphincterotomy in endoscopic removal of bile duct stones. A randomized trial with manometric function. Dig Dis Sci. 1995;40:2550–4.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Ochi Y, Mukawa K, Kiyosawa K, Akamatsu T. Comparing the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999;14:90–6.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Prat F, Fritsch J, Choury AD, Meduri B, Pelletier G, Buffet C. Endoscopic sphincteroclasy: a useful therapeutic tool for biliary endoscopy in Billroth II gastrectomy patients. Endoscopy. 1997;29:79–81.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Ueno N, Ozawa Y. Pancreatitis induced by endoscopic balloon sphincter dilation and changes in serum amylase levels after the procedure. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;49 (4 Pt 1):472–6.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Vlavianos P, Chopra K, Mandalia S, Anderson M, Thompson J, Westaby D. Endoscopic balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for the removal of bile duct stones: a prospective randomised trial. Gut. 2003;52:1165–9.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Arnold JC, Benz C, Martin WR, Adamek HE, Riemann JF. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation vs. sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones: a prospective randomized pilot study. Endoscopy. 2001;33:563–7.PubMedCrossRef
45.
DiSario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ, MacMathuna P, Petersen B, Sherman S. Endoscopic balloon dilation compared to sphincterotomy (EDES) for extraction of bile duct stones: preliminary results. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;45:AB129. (Abstract).
46.
Heo JH, Kang DH, Jung HJ, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:720–6.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Jeong S, Ki SH, Lee DH, et al. Endoscopic large-balloon sphincteroplasty without preceding sphincterotomy for the removal of large bile duct stones: a preliminary study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:915–22.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Teoh AY, Cheung FK, Hu B, et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones. Gastroenterology. 2013;144:341–5.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Catalano MF, Linder JD, Chak A, et al. Endoscopic management of adenoma of the major duodenal papilla. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:225–32.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Rolny P, Anderberg B, Ihse I, Lindstrom E, Olaison G, Arvill A. Pancreatitis after sphincter of Oddi manometry. Gut. 1990;31:821–4.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Sherman S, Troiano FP, Hawes RH, Lehman GA. Sphincter of Oddi manometry: decreased risk of clinical pancreatitis with use of a modified aspirating catheter. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36:462–6.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Sherman S, Hawes RH, Troiano FP, Lehman GA. Pancreatitis following bile duct sphincter of Oddi manometry: utility of the aspirating catheter. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:347–50.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Wehrmann T, Stergiou N, Schmitt T, Dietrich CF, Seifert H. Reduced risk for pancreatitis after endoscopic microtransducer manometry of the sphincter of Oddi: a randomized comparison with the perfusion manometry technique. Endoscopy. 2003;35:472–7.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Guda NM, Freeman ML. True culprit or guilt by association? Is sphincter of Oddi manometry the cause of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, or is it the patients’ susceptibility? Rev Gastroenterol Disord. 2004;4:211–3.PubMed
55.
Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Nicklas M, et al. Impact of skill and experience of the endoscopist on the outcome of endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:628–36.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, Kerstan E, Vogel W, Schreiber F. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy. 2008;40:625–30.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:139–47.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Guda NM, Freeman ML. Are you safe for your patients—how many ERCPs should you be doing? Endoscopy. 2008;40:675–6.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Brackbill S, Young S, Schoenfeld P, Elta G. A survey of physician practices on prophylactic pancreatic stents. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:45–52.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M, et al. Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:275–82.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Freeman ML. Pancreatic stents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: for everyday practice or for experts only? Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:940–4.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Mazaki T, Masuda H, Takayama T. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2010;42:842–53.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Sofuni A, Maguchi H, Mukai T, et al. Endoscopic pancreatic duct stents reduce the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:851–8.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Freeman ML, 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.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Rashdan A, Fogel EL, McHenry L Jr, Sherman S, Temkit M, Lehman GA. Improved stent characteristics for prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:322–9.
66.
Chahal P, Tarnasky PR, Petersen BT, et al. Short 5Fr vs long 3Fr pancreatic stents in patients at risk for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:834–9.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Pahk A, Rigaux J, Poreddy V, Smith J, Al-Kawas F. Prophylactic pancreatic stents: does size matter? A comparison of 4-Fr and 5-Fr stents in reference to post-ERCP pancreatitis and migration rate. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:3058–64.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Bakman YG, Safdar K, Freeman ML. Significant clinical implications of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in previously normal pancreatic ducts. Endoscopy. 2009;41:1095–8.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Kozarek RA. Pancreatic stents can induce ductal changes consistent with chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;36:93–5.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Smith MT, Sherman S, Ikenberry SO, Hawes RH, Lehman GA. Alterations in pancreatic ductal morphology following polyethylene pancreatic stent therapy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:268–75.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Dai HF, Wang XW, Zhao K. Role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2009;8:11–6.PubMed
72.
Elmunzer BJ, Waljee AK, Elta GH, Taylor JR, Fehmi SM, Higgins PD. A meta-analysis of rectal NSAIDs in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gut. 2008;57:1262–7.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Dumonceau JM, Rigaux J, Kahaleh M, Gomez CM, Vandermeeren A, Deviere J. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a practice survey. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:934–9.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Katsinelos P, Fasoulas K, Paroutoglou G, et al. Combination of diclofenac plus somatostatin in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Endoscopy. 2012;44:53–9.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Ferreira LE, Baron TH. Post-sphincterotomy bleeding: who, what, when, and how. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2850–8.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Freeman ML. Adverse outcomes of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56 Suppl 6:S273–82.
77.
Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA, et al. Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery. 1999;126:658–63.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Baron TH, Gostout CJ, Herman L. Hemoclip repair of a sphincterotomy-induced duodenal perforation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:566–8.PubMed
79.
Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, et al. ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy. 2002;34:293–8.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:31–40.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Williams EJ, 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.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Complications of ERCP
verfasst von
Nalini M. Guda
Duvvuru Nageshwar Reddy
Ajay Kumar
Publikationsdatum
01.01.2014
Verlag
Springer India
Erschienen in
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 1/2014
Print ISSN: 0254-8860
Elektronische ISSN: 0975-0711
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-013-0383-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2014

Indian Journal of Gastroenterology 1/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Short Report

Efficacy of endoscopic screening in an isolated island: A case–control study

CASE SERIES

The use of ABO-incompatible grafts in living donor liver transplantation—First report from India

CASE SERIES

Alagille syndrome: Experience of a tertiary care center in North India

SHORT REPORT

Single-balloon enteroscopy: A single-center experience of 48 procedures

Image

Biliary ascariasis causing gallbladder stump cholecystitis

CASE REPORT

Use of FDG/PET CT to diagnose malignancy as the cause of mucocele of the appendix

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

19.04.2024 | Vorhofflimmern | Nachrichten

Parodontalbehandlung verbessert Prognose bei Katheterablation

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Prostatakarzinom: EU initiiert neues Screeningkonzept

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Blasenkarzinom – Biomarker statt Zytologie?

18.04.2024 | Arterielle Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Antihypertensiva schützen auch alte Menschen noch vor Demenz
weitere anzeigen

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise