Risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) abdominal pain in patients without post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is often observed after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Few studies have focused on the risk factors of post-ERCP abdominal pain without post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This study aimed to identify risk factors of post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP and investigate characteristics of the abdominal pain in non-PEP patients. METHODS: Data from patients who underwent ERCP from August 2019 to January 2020 were retrospectively collected. Characteristics of the abdominal pain after ERCP were recorded and compared between PEP and non-PEP patients. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify risk factors of non-PEP abdominal pain. RESULTS: A total of 1295 ERCP procedures were investigated in this study, among which 100 (7.72%) patients presented post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP and 63 (4.86%) patients with PEP. Multivariate analysis found 9 risk factors of non-PEP abdominal pain: age ≤ 65 years [odds ratio (OR): 1.971], primary ERCP (OR: 2.442), dilated extrahepatic bile duct (OR: 1.803), no papilla opening (OR: 2.095), pancreatic guidewire passages (OR: 2.258), white blood cells (WBC) ≤ 6.0 × 109/L (OR: 1.689), platelet (PLT) ≤ 250 × 109/L (OR: 2.505), serum γ-glutamyl transferase (γ - GT) ≤ 35 U/L (OR: 2.190), and albumin ≥ 40 g/L (OR: 1.762). The PEP group had later pain onset, higher pain frequency and longer hospital stay than those of the non-PEP pain group (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the pain duration, visual analogue scale score and mortality between the PEP group and non-PEP pain group (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that age ≤ 65 years, primary ERCP, dilated extrahepatic bile duct, no papilla opening, pancreatic guidewire passages, lower WBC, lower PLT, normal γ - GT and elevated albumin were independent risk factors for post-ERCP abdominal pain without PEP. The pain occurred earlier in non-PEP patients than in PEP patients.

Risk factor analysis of post-ERCP cholangitis: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may have complications. Our study aimed to investigate the risk factors and prevention of post-ERCP cholangitis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 4234 cases undergone ERCP in the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School from January 2008 to December 2013. Patient-related factors and procedure-related factors were analyzed to find the risk factors of post-ERCP cholangitis. The time point of post-ERCP cholangitis was also analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to define the independent risk factors of post-ERCP cholangitis. RESULTS: The success rate of ERCP was 96.8% (4099/4234). The overall complication rate was 9.4% (399/4234). Post-ERCP cholangitis occurred in 102 cases (2.4%, 102/4234). The most dangerous time of post-ERCP cholangitis was from 24 h-48 h after ERCP (45.1%, 46/102). Univariate analysis revealed that age, hypertension, diabetes, previous ERCP history, biliary stent insertion, pancreatography, endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilation and hilar obstruction were risk factors of post-ERCP cholangitis (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis indicated that age, previous ERCP history and hilar obstruction were independent risk factors (P < 0.05). While endoscopic stone extraction was the potential protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: Many risk factors are involved in post-ERCP cholangitis. Among them, old age, previous ERCP history and hilar obstruction were independently related to this post-ERCP complication.

Dilation Time in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Common Bile Duct Stones.

BACKGROUND: To assess the short-term outcomes after endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) plus endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) versus EPBD alone and appropriate balloon dilation time in EPBD alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 413 patients with common bile duct stones (CBDSs) were included in the EST plus EPBD group and 84 were in the EPBD alone group. We retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy between EST plus EPBD and EPBD alone group. The patients in EPBD alone group were assigned to dilation time ≥5 minutes group (n=35) and time <5 minutes group (n=49). Further, we preliminarily discussed the influence of balloon dilation time on the procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Compared with EST plus EPBD, the patients in EPBD alone group were younger [56.6 (range: 18 to 95) vs. 65.1 (24 to 92) y; P=0.006], had smaller diameter of the largest stone [10.4 (range: 3 to 20) vs. 12.3 (5 to 30) mm; P<0.001] and were lesser frequently performed with jaundice [22 (26.2%) vs. 189 (45.8%); P=0.001]. The mean duration of postoperative hospital stay in EPBD alone group was significantly shorter than EST plus EPBD group [6.3 (range: 1 to 18) vs. 9.2 (1 to 44) d; P<0.001]. The patients in EPBD alone group had higher risk of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis than EST plus EPBD group [11 (13.1%) vs. 22 (5.3%); P=0.009]. Patients in the dilation time <5 minutes group had higher risk to suffer from postoperative pancreatitis than the EST plus EPBD group [9 (18.4%) vs. 22 (5.3%); P=0.002], while patients in the dilation time ≥5 minutes group had less procedure-related hemorrhage than the EST plus EPBD group [0 vs. 36 (8.7%); P=0.047]. CONCLUSION: Long balloon dilation time in EPBD alone is safe and effective in treating CBDSs.

Comparison of sequential pancreatic duct guidewire placement technique and needle knife precut sphincterotomy for difficult biliary cannulation.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic duct guidewire placement (PDGP) includes double guidewire technique (DGT) and transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS). DGT can be switched to TPS with ease due to the existing guidewire in the pancreatic duct. In this study, we aimed to combine DGT and TPS as a single technique, named sequential PDGP, and to compare its performance with needle knife precut sphincterotomy (NKPS) in treating difficult biliary cannulation (BC). METHODS: A total of 83 patients with difficult BC were enrolled in this study. Of these, 63 underwent sequential PDGP and 20 underwent NKPS. Cannulation success rate, cannulation time and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related complications were prospectively recorded and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Successful BC was achieved in 88.9% (56/63) of the patients in the sequential PDGP group compared with 70.0% (14/20) in the NKPS group (P = 0.095). Cannulation time was 7.49 ± 5.03 min in the sequential PDGP group and 10.60 ± 7.24 min in the NKPS group (P = 0.086). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 12.7% of patients in the sequential PDGP group and 10.0% in the NKPS group (P = 1.000). There was no significant difference in the rates of other complications (bleeding, perforation and cholangitis) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential PDGP is a safe and effective alternative method to NKPS in cases of difficult BC. In those with failed standard cannulation, sequential PDGP can be considered when the guidewire is inadvertently inserted into the pancreatic duct or can be placed in the pancreatic duct without difficulty.