Abstract
Abstract
Background
Perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare but feared adverse events with highly reported morbidity and mortality rates. The aim was to evaluate the incidence and outcome of ERCP-related perforations and to identify risk factors for death due to perforations in a population-based study.
Methods
Between May 2005 and December 2013, a total of 52,140 ERCPs were registered in GallRiks, a Swedish nationwide, population-based registry. A total of 376 (0.72%) were registered as perforations or extravasation of contrast during ERCP or as perforation in the 30-day follow-up. The patients with perforation were divided into fatal and non-fatal groups and analyzed for mortality risk factors. The case volume of centers and endoscopists were divided into the upper quartile (Q4) and the lower three quartile (Q1–3) groups. Furthermore, fatal group patients’ records were reviewed.
Results
Death within 90 days after ERCP-related perforations or at the index hospitalization occurred in 20% (75 out of 376) for all perforations and 0.1% (75 out of 52,140) for all ERCPs. The independent risk factors for death after perforation were malignancy (OR 11.2, 95% CI 5.8–21.6), age over 80 years (OR 3.8, 95% CI 2.0–7.4), and sphincterotomy in the pancreatic duct (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.1–7.5). In Q4 centers, the mortality was similar with or without pancreatic duct sphincterotomy (14% vs. 13%, p = 1.0), but in Q1–3 centers mortality was higher (45% vs. 21%, p = 0.024).
Conclusions
ERCP-related perforations are severe adverse events with low incidence (0.7%) and high mortality rate up to 20%. Malignancy, age over 80 years, and sphincterotomy in the pancreatic duct increase the risk to die after a perforation. The risk of a fatal outcome in perforations after pancreatic duct sphincterotomy was reduced when occurred at a Q4-center. In the case of a complicated perforation a transfer to a Q4-center may be considered.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference39 articles.
1. Moffatt DC, Yu BN, Yie W, Bernstein CN (2014) Trends in utilization of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP and cholecystectomy over the past 25 years: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc 79:615–622
2. Pereira P, Peixoto A, Andrade P, Macedo G (2017) Peroral cholangiopancreatoscopy with the SpyGlass(R) system: what do we know 10 years later. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 26:165–170
3. Ekkelenkamp VE, de Man RA, Ter Borg F, Borg PC, Bruno MJ, Groenen MJ, Hansen BE, van Tilburg AJ, Rauws EA, Koch AD (2015) Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry. Endoscopy 47:503–507
4. Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H, Teal E, French DD, Imperiale TF, Rosenman MB, Wilson J, Hui SL, Sherman S (2013) Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Med Care 51:1040–1047
5. Keswani RN, Qumseya BJ, O’Dwyer LC, Wani S (2017) Association between endoscopist and center endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volume with procedure success and adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(1866–75):e3
Cited by
32 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献