Clin Endosc.  2024 Jul;57(4):508-514. 10.5946/ce.2023.203.

Synergistic effect of independent risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan

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

• KMID: 2558108
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.203

Abstract

Background/Aims
This study aimed to examine the synergistic effect of independent risk factors on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP).
Methods
This multicenter retrospective study included 1,273 patients with native papillae who underwent ERCP for bile duct stones in Japan. Independent PEP risk factors were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses. Significant risk factors for PEP in the multivariate analysis were included in the final analysis to examine the synergistic effect of independent risk factors for PEP.
Results
PEP occurred in 45 of 1,273 patients (3.5%). Three factors including difficult cannulation ≥10 minutes, pancreatic injection, and normal serum bilirubin level were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PEP in patients with zero, one, two, and three factors were 0.5% (2/388), 1.9% (9/465), 6.0% (17/285), and 12.6% (17/135), respectively. With increasing risk factors for PEP, the incidence of PEP significantly increased (1 factor vs. 2 factors, p=0.006; 2 factors vs. 3 factors, p=0.033).
Conclusions
As the number of risk factors for PEP increases, the risk of PEP may not be additive; however, it may multiply. Thus, aggressive prophylaxis for PEP is strongly recommended in patients with multiple risk factors.

Keyword

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Pancreatitis; Risk factors

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. The incidence rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis based on the number of independent risk factors. PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

• 

Reference

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

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

4. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54:425–434.

5. 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; 9:851–858.

6. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71:446–454.

7. Ryozawa S, Itoi T, Katanuma A, et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for endoscopic sphincterotomy. Dig Endosc. 2018; 30:149–173.

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

9. Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81:143–149.

10. Vadalà di Prampero SF, Faleschini G, Panic N, et al. Endoscopic and pharmacological treatment for prophylaxis against postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 28:1415–1424.

11. Fan JH, Qian JB, Wang YM, et al. Updated meta-analysis of pancreatic stent placement in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21:7577–7583.

12. Mazaki T, Mado K, Masuda H, et al. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: an updated meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol. 2014; 49:343–355.

13. Shi QQ, Ning XY, Zhan LL, et al. Placement of prophylactic pancreatic stents to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:7040–7048.

14. Akshintala VS, Sperna Weiland CJ, Bhullar FA, et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intravenous fluids, pancreatic stents, or their combinations for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 6:733–742.

15. 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; 73:275–282.

16. Wu D, Wan J, Xia L, et al. The efficiency of aggressive hydration with lactated ringer solution for the prevention of post-ercp pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017; 51:e68–e76.

17. Zhang ZF, Duan ZJ, Wang LX, et al. Aggressive hydration with lactated ringer solution in prevention of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017; 51:e17–e26.

18. Radadiya D, Devani K, Arora S, et al. Peri-procedural aggressive hydration for post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogra­phy (ERCP) pancreatitis prophylaxsis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pancreatology. 2019; 19:819–827.

19. Márta K, Gede N, Szakács Z, et al. Combined use of indomethacin and hydration is the best conservative approach for post-ERCP pancreatitis prevention: a network meta-analysis. Pancreatology. 2021; 21:1247–1255.

20. 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.

21. 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.

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

23. 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.

24. Saito H, Kadono Y, Shono T, et al. Increased post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for choledocholithiasis without acute cholangitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022; 37:327–334.

25. Friedland S, Soetikno RM, Vandervoort J, et al. Bedside scoring system to predict the risk of developing pancreatitis following ERCP. Endoscopy. 2002; 34:483–488.

26. Jeurnink SM, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW, et al. Predictors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prognostic model for early discharge. Surg Endosc. 2011; 25:2892–2900.

27. DiMagno MJ, Spaete JP, Ballard DD, et al. Risk models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP): smoking and chronic liver disease are predictors of protection against PEP. Pancreas. 2013; 42:996–1003.

28. Park CH, Park SW, Yang MJ, et al. Pre- and post-procedure risk prediction models for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Surg Endosc. 2022; 36:2052–2061.

29. Fujita K, Yazumi S, Uza N, et al. New practical scoring system to predict post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: development and validation. JGH Open. 2021; 5:1078–1084.