Clin Endosc.  2022 Mar;55(2):263-269. 10.5946/ce.2021.153.

Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones

• Saito H
• Kadono Y
• Shono T
• Kamikawa K
• Urata A
• Nasu J
• Imamura H
• Matsushita I
• Kakuma T
• Tada S

• KMID: 2527571
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2021.153

Abstract

Background/Aims
Difficult biliary cannulation is an important risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Therefore, this study aimed to identify the factors that predict difficult cannulation for common bile duct stones (CBDS) to reduce the risk for PEP.
Methods
This multicenter retrospective study included 1,406 consecutive patients with native papillae who underwent ERCP for CBDS. Factors predicting difficult cannulation for CBDS were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
Univariate analysis showed that six factors significantly predicted difficult cannulation: ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists, low-volume center, absence of acute cholangitis, normal serum bilirubin, intradiverticular papilla, and type of major duodenal papilla. Multivariate analysis identified ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; p<0.001), low-volume center (OR, 1.6; p<0.001), intradiverticular papilla (OR, 1.3; p=0.007), normal serum bilirubin (OR, 1.3; p=0.038), and absence of acute cholangitis (OR, 1.3; p=0.049) as factors significantly predicting difficult cannulation for CBDS.
Conclusions
Initial cannulation by an experienced endoscopist, early rescue cannulation, or early takeover by an experienced endoscopist should be considered when performing ERCP for CBDS in the presence of factors predicting difficult cannulation.

Keyword

Common bile duct stone; Difficult cannulation; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Predictive factors

Reference

1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85:32–47.

2. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCP-related adverse events: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2020; 52:127–149.

3. Mine T, Morizane T, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2017; 52:1013–1022.

4. Haraldsson E, Kylänpää L, Grönroos J, et al. Macroscopic appearance of the major duodenal papilla influences bile duct cannulation: a prospective multicenter study by the scandinavian association for digestive endoscopy study group for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 90:957–963.

5. Berry R, Han JY, Tabibian JH. Difficult biliary cannulation: historical perspective, practical updates, and guide for the endoscopist. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 11:5–21.

6. Yue P, Zhu KX, Wang HP, et al. Clinical significance of different periampullary diverticulum classifications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cannulation. World J Gastroenterol. 2020; 26:2403–2415.

7. Keswani RN, Qumseya BJ, O’Dwyer LC, Wani S. Association between endoscopist and center endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volume with procedure success and adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 15:1866–1875.e3.

8. Williams EJ, Ogollah R, Thomas P, et al. What predicts failed cannulation and therapy at ERCP? Results of a large-scale multicenter analysis. Endoscopy. 2012; 44:674–683.

9. Peng C, Nietert PJ, Cotton PB, Lackland DT, Romagnuolo J. Predicting native papilla biliary cannulation success using a multinational endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Quality Network. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013; 13:147.

10. 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.

11. Halttunen J, Meisner S, Aabakken L, et al. Difficult cannulation as defined by a prospective study of the scandinavian association for digestive endoscopy (SADE) in 907 ERCPs. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014; 49:752–758.

12. Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L, et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy. 2016; 48:657–683.

13. Saito H, Koga T, Sakaguchi M, et al. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 34:1153–1159.

14. Saito H, Sakaguchi M, Kadono Y, et al. Disease-based risk stratification of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for common bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci. 2022; 67:305–314.

15. Balik E, Eren T, Keskin M, et al. Parameters that may be used for predicting failure during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Oncol. 2013; 2013:201681.

16. Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS, Affronti J, Browning CL, Bute BP. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med. 1996; 125:983–989.

17. ASGE Training Committee, Jorgensen J, Kubiliun N, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83:279–289.

18. Haraldsson E, Lundell L, Swahn F, et al. Endoscopic classification of the papilla of Vater. Results of an inter- and intraobserver agreement study. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017; 5:504–510.

19. Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018; 25:17–30.

20. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48:452–458.

21. Fukatsu H, Kawamoto H, Kato H, et al. Evaluation of needle-knife precut papillotomy after unsuccessful biliary cannulation, especially with regard to postoperative anatomic factors. Surg Endosc. 2008; 22:717–723.

22. Chen PH, Tung CF, Peng YC, Yeh HZ, Chang CS, Chen CC. Duodenal major papilla morphology can affect biliary cannulation and complications during ERCP, an observational study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020; 20:310.

23. Kim SB, Kim KH, Kim TN. Comparison of outcomes and complications of endoscopic common bile duct stone removal between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Dig Dis Sci. 2016; 61:1172–1177.

24. Saito H, Kakuma T, Kadono Y, et al. Increased risk and severity of ERCP-related complications associated with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. Endosc Int Open. 2017; 5:E809–E817.

25. Xu XD, Qian JQ, Dai JJ, Sun ZX. Endoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis in asymptomatic patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 35:165–169.

26. Xiao L, Geng C, Li X, Li Y, Wang C. Comparable safety of ERCP in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with common bile duct stones: a propensity-matched analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2021; 56:111–117.

27. Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic bile duct stones and association of endoscopic treatment with clinical outcomes. J Gastroenterol. 2020; 55:78–85.

28. Frost JW, Kurup A, Shetty S, Fisher N. Does the presence of a trainee compromise success of biliary cannulation at ERCP? Endosc Int Open. 2017; 5:E559–E562.

29. Lee TH, Park SH. Optimal use of wire-assisted techniques and precut sphincterotomy. Clin Endosc. 2016; 49:467–474.

30. Lee YS, Cho CM, Cho KB, et al. Difficult biliary cannulation from the perspective of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: identifying the optimal timing for the rescue cannulation technique. Gut Liver. 2021; 15:459–465.