Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 May 21;13(19):2655-68.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v13.i19.2655.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography

Affiliations
Review

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography

Ayman M Abdel Aziz et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Pancreatitis is the most common complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); the reported incidence of this complication varies from less than 1% to 40%, but a rate of 4%-8% is reported in most prospective studies involving non-selected patients. Differences in criteria for defining pancreatitis, methods of data collection, and patient populations (i.e. number of high-risk patients included in the published series) are factors that are likely to affect the varying rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis. The severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) can range from a minor inconvenience with one or two days of added hospitalization with full recovery to a devastating illness with pancreatic necrosis, multiorgan failure, permanent disability, and even death. Although, most episodes of PEP are mild (about 90%), a small percentage of patients (about 10%) develop moderate or severe pancreatitis. In the past, PEP was often viewed as an unpredictable and unavoidable complication, with no realistic strategy for its avoidance. New data have aided in stratification of patients into PEP risk categories and new measures have been introduced to decrease the risk of PEP. As most ERCPs are performed on an outpatient basis, the majority of patients will not develop PEP and can be discharged. Alternatively, early detection of those patients who will go on to develop PEP can guide decisions regarding hospital admission and aggressive management. In the last decade, great efforts have been addressed toward prevention of this complication. Points of emphasis have included technical measures, pharmacological prophylaxis, and patient selection. This review provides a comprehensive, evidence-based assessment of published data on PEP and current suggestions for its avoidance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Endoscopic view of pancreatic 4 french stent after pancreatic sphincterotomy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis according to the extent of pancreatic duct opacification. Retrospective analysis of database with 14431 patients with no or normal pancreatogram (groupI: no pancreatogram or failed pancreatogram, group II: pancreatogram of the head only, group III: pancreatogram of head/body only, group IV: pancreatogram including tail)[69].

References

    1. Adler DG, Lichtenstein D, Baron TH, Davila R, Egan JV, Gan SL, Qureshi WA, Rajan E, Shen B, Zuckerman MJ, et al. The role of endoscopy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:933–937. - PubMed
    1. Testoni PA, Bagnolo F, Natale C, Primignani M. Incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde-cholangiopancreatography/sphincterotomy pancreatitis depends upon definition criteria. Dig Liver Dis. 2000;32:412–418. - PubMed
    1. Murray WR. Reducing the incidence and severity of post ERCP pancreatitis. Scand J Surg. 2005;94:112–116. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Testoni PA, Bagnolo F. Pain at 24 hours associated with amylase levels greater than 5 times the upper normal limit as the most reliable indicator of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;53:33–39. - PubMed