Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding risk factors and avoiding complications with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complications and technical failures of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cause significant morbidity and, occasionally, mortality. An understanding of patient- and procedure-related risks is important for decision making with regard to whether or how ERCP should be performed. Instances in which ERCP is the least clearly indicated are often the most likely to cause complications. Patient-related risk factors include suspected sphincter of Oddi (SO) dysfunction, female sex, normal serum bilirubin, or previous history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with multiple risk factors conferring especially high risk. Techniquerelated risk factors include difficult cannulation, pancreatic contrast injection, balloon sphincter dilation, and precut sphincterotomy performed by endoscopists of varied experience. Pancreatic stents may reduce the risk of pancreatitis in a number of settings including SO dysfunction. Hemorrhage and perforation are rare and can be avoided with endoscopic technique and attention to the patient’s coagulation status. Cholangitis is avoidable with adequate biliary drainage. Because success rates are higher and complication rates lower for endoscopists performing large volumes of ERCP, ERCP should be concentrated as much as possible among endoscopists with adequate experience. Patients with a high risk for complications may be best served by referral to an advanced center.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes JA, et al.: Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991, 37:383–391. These classic consensus definitions of ERCP complications remain the standard yardstick.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. This important multicenter study of ERCP complications shows that center volume is associated with higher success and fewer complications.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gottlieb K, Sherman S: ERCP and endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1998, 8:87–114.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Newcomer MK, Jowell PS, Cotton PB: Underestimation of adverse events following ERCP: a prospective 30 day followup study [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 41:408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sherman S, Lehman GA: Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic sphincterotomy. In Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy. Edited by Barkin J, O’Phelan CA. New York: Raven Press; 1990:201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Moreira VF, Arribas R, Sanroman AL: Choledocholithiasis in cirrhotic patients: Is endoscopic sphincterotomy the safest choice? Am J Gastroenterol 1991, 86:1006–1010

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, et al.: Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate. Endoscopy 1994, 26:209–216

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:909–918. The largest and most comprehensive study of sphincterotomy complications, including multivariate analyses of risk factors for overall complications, pancreatitis, and hemorrhage.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Neoptolemos JP, Shaw DE, Carr-Locke DL: A multivariate analysis of peroperative risk factors in patients with common bile duct stones. Ann Surg 1989, 209:157–161.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. .Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al.: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:425–434. A large comprehensive multivariate analysis of risk factors for post- ERCP pancreatitis.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lai EC, Lo CM, Choi TK, et al.: Urgent biliary decompression after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Surg 1989, 157:121–125.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Maldonado ME, Brady PG, Mamel JJ, Robinson B: Incidence of pancreatitis in patients undergoing sphincter of Oddi manometry (SOM). Am J Gastroenterol 1999, 94:387–390.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS, et al.: Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 1998, 30:457–463.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Motte S, Deviere J, Dumonceau JM, et al.: Risk factors for septicemia following endoscopic biliary stenting. Gastroenterology 1991, 101:1374–1381.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 lowdose anticoagulation treatment. Endoscopy 2000, 32:10–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nelson DB, Freeman ML: Major hemorrhage from endoscopic sphincterotomy: risk factor analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 1994, 19:283–287.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hawes RH, Cotton PB, Vallon AG: Folow up 6 to 11 years after duodenoscopic sphincterotomy for stones in patients with prior cholecystectomy. Gastroenterology 1990, 98:1008–1012.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Prat F, Malak MA, Pelletier G: Biliary symptoms and complications more than 8 years after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithasis. Gastroenterology 1996,110:894–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergman JJG, van der Mey S, Rauws EAJ, et al.: Long-term follow-up after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones in patients younger than 60 years of age. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44:643–649.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Silvis SE: Endoscopic sphincterotomy with an intact gallbladder. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1991, 1:65–77.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hill J, Martin DF, Tweedle DE: Risks of leaving the gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Br J Surgery 1991, 78:554–557.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Geenen JE, Touli J, Hogan WJ: Endoscopic sphincterotomy: follow-up evaluation of effects on the sphincter of Oddi. Gastroenterology 1984, 87:754–758.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. May GR, Cotton PB, Edmunds EJ: Removal of stones from the bile duct at ERCP without sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1993, 396:749–751.

    Google Scholar 

  28. MacMathuna P, White P, Clarke E, et al.: Endoscopic balloon sphincteroplasty (papillary dilation) for bile duct stones: efficacy, safety, and follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:468–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergman JJ, Rauws EA, Fockens P, et al.: Randomised trial of endoscopic balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones. Lancet 1997, 349:1124–1129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Ochi Y, Mukawa K, Kiyosawa K, et al.: Comparing the treatment outcomes of endoscopic papillary dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999, 14:90–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. DiSario JA, Freeman ML, Bjorkman DJ, et al.: Endoscopic balloon dilation compared to sphincterotomy (EDES) for extraction of bile duct stones: preliminary results [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1997, 45:AB129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Cotton PB: Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 1994, 40:514–518.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fleischer DE: Better definition of endoscopic complications and other negative outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 1994, 40:511–514.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Snady HW, et al.: Failures and complications of ERCP: impact on procedural outcome and resource utilization [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol 1997, 92:1634.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR: The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 1993, 118:201–210.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Freeman ML: Sedation and monitoring for gastrointestinal endoscopy. In Textbook of Gastroenterology. Edited by Yamada T. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins; 1999:2655–2667.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Trap R, Adamsen S, Hart-Hansen O, Henriksen M: Severe and fatal complications after diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective series of claims to insurance covering public hospitals. Endoscopy 1999, 31:125–130.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Geenen JE, Hogan WJ, Dodds WJ, et al.: The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy after cholecystectomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. N Engl J Med 1989, 320:82–87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kozarek RA: Biliary dyskinesia: Are we any closer to defining the entity? Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 1993, 3:167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lehman GA, Sherman S: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Int J Pancreatol 1996, 20:11–25.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Hogan WJ: Stenting the pancreas: Is this the solution to post-ERCP pancreatitis? Gastroenterology 1998, 115:1591–1594.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rolny P, Anderberg B, Ishe I, et al.: Pancreatitis after sphincter of Oddi manometry. Gut 1990, 31:821–824.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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, 36:462–466.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Johanson JF, et al.: Evaluation of post-ERCP pancreatitis: potential causes noted during controlled study of differing contrast media. Gastrointest Endosc 1997, 46:217–222.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dickinson RJ, Davies S: Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia: the role of operative and patient. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998, 10:423–428.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Vandervoort J, Carr-Locke DL: Needle-knife access papillotomy: an unfairly maligned technique? [editorial] Endoscopy 1996, 28:365–366.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Shakoor T, Geenen JE: Pre-cut papillotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1992, 38:623–627.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Cotton PB: Precut papillotomy: a risky technique for experts only [editorial]. Gastrointest Endosc 1989, 35:578–579.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Freeman ML: Precut (access) sphincterotomy: techniques in Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 1:40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Huibregtse K, Katon RM, Tytgat GN: Precut papillotomy via fine needle-knife papillotome: a safe and effective technique. Gastrointest Endosc 1986, 32:403–405.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gholson CF, Favrot D: Needle-knife papillotomy in a university referral practice: safety and efficacy of a modified technique. J Clin Gastroenterol 1996, 23:177–180.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Binmoeller KF, Seifert H, Gerke H, et al.: Papillary roof incision using the Erlangen-type pre-cut papillotome to achieve bile duct cannulation. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44:689–695.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Foutch PG: A prospective assessment of results for needleknife papillotomy and standard endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 41:25–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Kasmin FE, Cohen D, Batra S, et al.: Needle-knife sphincterotomy in a tertiary referral center: efficacy and complications. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44:48–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Slot WB, Schoeman MN, Disario JA et al.: Needle-knife sphincterotomy as a pre-cut procedure: a retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications. Endoscopy 1996, 28:334–339.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sherman S, Hawes R, Earle D, et al.: Does leaving a main pancreatic duct stent in place reduce the incidence of precut biliary sphincterotomy (ES)-induced pancreatitis? A final analysis of a randomized prospective study [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 43:413.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tarnasky, P, Palesch, Y, Cunningham J, et al.: Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998, 115:1518–1524. A landmark study showing the protective efficacy of pancreatic stents in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction undergoing biliary sphincterotomy.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Patel R, Tarnasky PR, Hennessy WS, et al.: Does stenting after pancreatic sphincterotomy reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis in paitents with prior biliary sphincterotomy? Preliminary results of a prospective, randomized trial [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:80A.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Elton E, Howell DA, Parsons WG, et al.: Endoscopic pancreatic sphincterotomy: indications, outcome, and a safe stentless technique. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 47:240–249.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Catalano MF, Fazel A, Quadri A, et al.: Needle-knife sphincterotomy in inaccessible obstructed bile ducts: a 15-year review [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:AB154.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Kaw M: Complications of needle-knife precut papillotomy techniques: tertiary care endoscopist experience [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:AB154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Aizawa T, Ueno N: Stent placement in the pancreatic duct prevents pancreatitis after endoscopic sphincter dilation for removal of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:209–213.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Smithline A, Silverman W, Rogers D, et al.: Effect of prophylactic main pancreatic duct stenting on the incidence of biliary endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc 1993, 39:652–657.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Fogel EL, Eversman D, Jamidar P, et al.: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: pancreaticobiliary sphincterotomy with pancreatic stent placement has a lower rate of pancreatitis than biliary sphincterotomy alone. Endoscopy 2002, 34:325–329. A large series showing the efficacy of pancreatic stents in reducing risk of pancreatitis after sphincterotomy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Harewood GC, Baron TH: An assessment of the learning curve for precut biliary sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002, 97:1708–1712.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Kozarek RA: Pancreatic stents can induce ductal changes consistent with chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 1990, 36:93–95.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith MT, Sherman S, Ikenberry SO, et al.: Alterations in pancreatic ductal morphology following polyethylene pancreatic stent therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996, 44:268–275.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Schwacha H, Allgaier HP, Deibert P, et al.: A sphincterotomebased technique for selective trasnspapillary common bile duct cannulation. Gastrointest Andosc 2000, 52:387–391.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Cortas GA, Mehta SN, Abraham NS, et al.: Selective cannulation of the common bile duct: a prospective randomized trial comparing standard catheters with sphincterotomes. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 50:775–779.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Siegel JH, Veerappen A, Tucker R: Bipolar versus monopolar sphincterotomy: a prospective trial. Am J Gastroenterol 1994, 89:1827–1830.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Elta GH, Barnett JL, Wille RT, et al.: Pure cut electrocautery current for sphincterotomy causes less post-procedure pancreatitis than blended current. Gastrointest Endosc 1998, 47:149–153.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Perini RF, Sadurski R, Hawes RH, et al.: Does the ERBE generator influence the incidence of post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction? An analysis of 560 patients [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 53:AB61.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Andriulli A, Leandro G, Niro G, et al.: Pharmacologic treatment can prevent pancreatic injury after ERCP: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 51:1–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Deviere J, Le Moine O, Van Laethem J et al.: Interleukin 10 reduces the incidence of pancreatitis after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 2001, 120:498–505.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Bedford RA: A comparison of nonionic versus ionic contrast media: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:312–316.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Budzynska A, Marek T, Nowak A, et al.: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of prednisone and allopurinol in the prevention of ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2001, 33:766–772.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Sahai AV, Kay CK, Hoffman BJ: Nonendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography diagnosis of bile duct stones. Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1999, 1:7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complications study. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:580–586.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Leung JWC, Chan FKL, Sung JJY, Chung S: Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced hemorrhage: a study of risk factors and the role of epinephrine injection. Gastrointest Endosc 1995,42:550–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Mellinger JD, Ponsky JL: Bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy as an underestimated entity. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1991, 172:465–469.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Qaseem T, Howell DA, Elton E, Parsons WG: Prevention of post endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) bleeding: Is epinephrine usage safe [abstract]? Am J Gastroenterol 1996,91:1940.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Catalano MF, Geenen JE, Johnson GK, et al.: Endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients at high risk for gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage: a new technique [abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 41:392.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Sherman S, Hawes RH, Nisi R, Lehman GA: Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced hemorrhage: treatment with multipolar electrocoagulation. Gastrointest Endosc 1992,38:123–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA, et al.: Management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery 1999, 126:658–663.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Harris A, Chan AC, Torres-Viera C, et al.: Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1999, 31:718–724.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. Asburn HJ, Rossi RL, Heiss FW, Shea JA: Acute relapsing pancreatitis as a complication of papillary stenosis after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastroenterology 1993, 104:1814–1817.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Wigton RS: Measuring procedural skills. Ann Intern Med 1996,125:1003–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Huibregtse K: Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy and their prevention. N Engl J Med 1996,335:961–962.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Minnesota, Hennepin County Medical Center, 701 Park Avenue South, 55415, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Martin L. Freeman MD

Authors
  1. Martin L. Freeman MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freeman, M.L. Understanding risk factors and avoiding complications with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 5, 145–153 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-003-0084-9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-003-0084-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation