Background and Aims: Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is one of the most common and serious complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study aims to test the hypothesis that the incidence of PEP declined over time due to improved patient selection and/or endoscopic equipment and endoscopic techniques. Therefore, we compared the incidence and risk factors of PEP between four arbitrary chronologically stratified groups. Methods: A total of 7,168 cases of ERCP procedures were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different developmental stages of ERCP equipment and techniques, cases were divided into four groups. The incidence rates and major risk factors for acute PEP were compared between groups. Results: Among the 7,168 cases, the overall incidence of PEP was 3.70% (265/7,168). When analyzed against each stage of ERCP development, the incidence of PEP was 4.09% (77/1,884) in stage I, 5.79% (86/1,489) in stage II, 3.95% (62/1,568) in stage III and 1.80% (40/2,227) in stage IV. By univariate analysis, pancreatic stent placement (OR: 0.300) and use of propofol-balanced anesthesia (OR: 0.632) seem to be protective factors for acute PEP. By multivariate analysis, the following risk factors for PEP could be identified: repeated cannulation (OR: 3.462), pancreatic duct injection (OR: 3.218), balloon dilation of biliary sphincter (OR: 2.847), papillae precut (OR: 2.493), nonselective high-pressure injection (OR: 1.428), excessive electrocoagulation incision (OR: 1.263), history of pancreatitis (OR: 3.843) and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (OR: 1.782). Conclusions: Improved technical procedures were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of PEP. Risks for developing PEP may be minimized by constant improvement in ERCP techniques, such as routine use of a guidewire, highly selective cannulation, pancreatic stent placement and cautious incision.

Keywords:
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Complications, Postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, Risk factors
1.
Abdel Aziz AM, Lehman GA: Pacreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:2655–2668.
2.
Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS, Shaw MJ, Snady HW, Erickson RV, Moore JP, Roel JP: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425–434.
3.
Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J: Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:721–731.
4.
Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M, Minoli G, Crosta C, Comin U, Fertitta A, Prada A, Passoni GR, Testoni PA: Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:417–423.
5.
Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, Barnett J, Freeman M, Geenen J, Ryan M, Parker H, Frakes JT, Fogel EL, Silverman WB, Dua KS, Aliperti G, Yakshe P, Uzer M, Jones W, Goff J, Lazzell-Pannell L, Rashdan A, Temkit M, Lehman GA: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:139–147.
6.
Matsubayashi H, Fukutomi A, Kanemoto H, Maeda A, Matsunaga K, Uesaka K, Otake Y, Hasuike N, Yamaguchi Y, Ikehara H, Takizawa K, Yamazaki K, Ono H: Risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde holangiopancreatography and endoscopic biliary drainage. HPB (Oxford) 2009;11:222–228.
7.
Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, Wong RC, Ferrari AP Jr, Montes H, Roston AD, Slivka A, Lichtenstein DR, Ruymann FW, Van Dam J, Hughes M, Carr-Locke DL: Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:652–656.
8.
Lee JK, Park JK, Yoon WJ, Lee SH, Lee KH, Ryu JK, Kim YT, Yoon YB: Risk for post- ERCP pancreatitis after needle knife precut sphincterotomy following repeated cannulation attempts. J Clin Gastroenterol 2007;41:427–431.
9.
Pezzilli R, Romboli E, Campana D, Corinaldesi R: Mechanisms involved in the onset of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2002;3:162–168.
10.
Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, Ren X, Lu NH, Fan ZN, Huang Q, Zhang X, He LP, Sun WS, Zhao Q, Shi RH, Tian ZB, Li YQ, Li W, Zhi FC: Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:31–40.
11.
Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N: Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383–393.
12.
Balthazar EJ: Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT evaluation. Radiology 2002;223:603–613.
13.
Akashi R, Kiyozumi T, Tanaka T, Sakurai K, Oda Y, Sagara K: Mechanism of pancreatitis caused by ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:50–54.
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;101:1068–1075.
15.
Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Bedford RA, Johanson J, Cass O, Sherman S, Hogan WJ, Ryan M, Silverman W, Edmundowicz S: A comparison of nonionic versus ionic contrast media: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Study Group. Gastrointest Endosc 1995;42:312–316.
16.
Baillie J: Predicting and preventing post- ERCP pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2002;4:112–119.
17.
Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan WL, Lau JY, Sung JJ: Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:1211–1219.
18.
Lee TH, Park do H, Park JY, Kim EO, Lee YS, Park JH, Lee SH, Chung IK, Kim HS, Park SH, Kim SJ: Can wire-guided cannulation prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis? A prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;69:444–449.
19.
Lella F, Bagnolo F, Colombo E, Bonassi U: A simple way of avoiding post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:830–834.
20.
Itoi T, Ishii K, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Kurihara T, Tsuchiya T, Tsuji S, Umeda J, Moriyasu F: Single balloon enteroscopy-assisted ERCP using rendezvous technique for sharp angulation of Roux-en-Y limb in a patient with bile duct stones. Diagn Ther Endosc 2009;2009:154084.
21.
Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, Wong RC, Sivak MV Jr, Agrawal D, Chak A: 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.
22.
Freeman ML: Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: pharmacologic solution or patient selection and pancreatic stents? Gastroenterology 2003;124:1977–1980.
23.
Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, Sherman S, Lehman GA: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone. Endoscopy 2002;34:280–285.
24.
Li N, Tieng A, Novak S, Fernandes A, Jalal PK, Akerman P, Sideridis K, Bank S: Effects of medications on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Pancreatology 2010;10:238–242.
25.
Goulson DT, Fragneto RY: Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Anesthesiol Clin 2009;27:71–85.
26.
Jung M, Hofmann C, Kiesslich R, Brackertz A: Improved sedation in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: propofol is an alternative to midazolam. Endoscopy 2000;32:233–238.
27.
Zhao Mingning, Yang Yong, Zhang Wen-jie, et al: Analysis of influencing factors of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (in Chinese). J Hepatopancreatobiliary Surg 2010;22:389–393.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel and IAP
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.