Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Komplikationen nach ERCP

Complications after ERCP

  • Schwerpunkt
  • Published:
Der Gastroenterologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die endoskopisch retrograde Cholangiopankreatikographie (ERCP) hat sich seit ihrer Etablierung Anfang der 1970er Jahre von einer primär diagnostischen Prozedur zu einem überwiegend therapeutischen Verfahren entwickelt. Diagnostisch werden heutzutage von wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen komplikationsärmere Alternativen wie Endosonographie (EUS) und Magnetresonanz-Cholangiopankreatikographie (MRCP) eingesetzt. Die therapeutische ERCP ist eine der invasivsten endoskopischen Untersuchungstechniken mit einem Komplikationsrisiko von bis zu 10 %. Es dominiert die Post-ERCP-Pankreatitis, gefolgt von Cholangitis, Cholezystitis, Blutung und Perforation. Risikofaktoren für Komplikationen und prophylaktische Maßnahmen werden in diesem Artikel erörtert.

Abstract

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) has developed from a primary diagnostic procedure at the time of establishment in the beginning of the 1970s to a mainly therapeutic procedure nowadays. Less complicated investigations, such asendoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography (MRCP) are now the preferred diagnostic alternatives apart from a few exceptions. Therapeutic ERCP is one of the most invasive endoscopic procedures and is associated with a complication risk of up to 10 %. Post-ERCP pancreatitis is the dominating complication followed by cholangitis, cholecystitis, hemorrhage and perforation. The risk factors and prophylaxis of complications are discussed in this article.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4

Literatur

  1. Rabenstein T, Hahn EG (2002) Post-ERCP pancreatitis: new momentum. Endoscopy 34: 325–329 (Review)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S et al (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335: 909–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman ML (2012) Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 22: 567–586

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL et al (2006) Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 139–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cotton PB, Lehman GA, Vennes J et al (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37: 383–393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ell C, Rabenstein T, Ruppert T et al (1995) 20 Jahre endoskopische Papillotomie – Analyse der Erlanger Erfahrungen bei 2752 Patienten. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 120: 163–167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rabenstein T, Roggenbuck S, Framke B et al (2002) Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: can heparin prevent acute pancreatitis after ERCP? Gastrointest Endosc 55: 476–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA et al (2012) A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 366: 1414–1422

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rabenstein T, Fischer B, Wiessner V et al (2004) Low-molecular-weight heparin does not prevent acute post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 59: 606–613

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Hahn EG, Ell C (1998) 25 years of endoscopic sphincterotomy in Erlangen: assessment of experience in the treatment of 3498 patients. Endoscopy 30(Suppl 2): A194–A201

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J et al (2010) European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 42: 503–515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Nicklas M et al (1999) The impact of skill and experience of the endoscopist on the outcome of endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 50: 628–636

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Bulling D et al (2000) Assessment of risk factors of endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques: a prospective series with emphasis on the decreased risk of post-EST pancreatitis by low-dose anticoagulation. Endoscopy 32: 10–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rabenstein T, Hahn EG (2002) Post-ERCP pancreatitis: is the endoscopist’s experience the major risk factor? JOP 3: 177–187

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Abdel Aziz AM, Lehman GA (2007) Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. World J Gastroenterol 13: 2655–2668

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM et al (2009) Can a wire-guided cannulation technique increase bile duct cannulation rate and prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis?: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 104: 2343–2350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Choudhary A, Puli S, Ibdah J, Bechtold M (2009) Guidewire use for prevention of post ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 69: AB305

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cheung J, Tsoi KK, Quan W-L et al (2009) Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic reviewand meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 70: 1211–1219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rabenstein T, Ruppert T, Schneider HT et al (1997) Benefits and risks of needle-knife papillotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 46: 207–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cennamo V, Fuccio L, Zagari RM et al (2010) Can early precut implementation reduce endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography-related complication risk? Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy 42: 381–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gong B, Hao L, Bie L et al (2010) Does precut technique improve selective bile duct cannulation or increase post-ERCP pancreatitis rate? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Surg Endosc 24: 2670–2680

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mazaki T, Masuda H, Takayama T (2010) Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 42: 842–853

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sofuni A, Magucki H, Mukai T et al (2011) Endoscopic pancreatic duct stents reduce the incidence of post-endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 9: 851–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Choudhary A, Bechtold ML, Arif M et al (2011) Pancreatic stents for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 73: 275–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Andriulli A, Clemente R, Solmi L et al (2002) Gabexate or somatostatin administration before ERCP in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 56: 488–495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Seta T, Nogucki Y (2011) Protease inhibitors for preventing complications associated with ERCP: an updated meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 73: 700–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yoo KS, Huh KR, Kim KO et al (2011) Nafamostat mesilate for prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Pancreas 40: 181–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Park KT, Kang DH, Choi CW et al (2011) Is high-dose nafamostat mesilate effective for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis, especially in high-risk patients? Pancreas 40: 1215–1219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zheng M, Chen Y, Yang X et al (2007) Gabexate in the prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol 7: 6

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chen S, Shi H, Zou X, Luo H (2010) Role of ulinastatin in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: the emperor’s new clothes or Aladdin’s magic lamp? Pancreas 39: 1231–1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen B, Fan T, Wang CH (2010) A meta-analysis for the effect of prophylactic GTN on the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis and on the successful rate of cannulation of bile ducts. BMC Gastroenterol 10: 85

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bai Y, Xu C, Yang X et al (2009) Glyceryl trinitrate for prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Endoscopy 41: 690–695

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bang UC, Nojgaard C, Andersen PK, Matzen P (2009) Meta-analysis: nitroglycerin for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 29: 1078–1085

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Murray B, Carter R, Imrie C et al (2003) Diclofenac reduces the incidence of acute pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Gastroenterology 124: 1786–1791

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pezzilli R, Morselli-Labate AM, Corinaldesi R (2010) NSAIDs and acute pancreatitis: a systematic review. Pharmaceuticals 3: 558–571

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Cheon YK, Cho KB, Watkins JL et al (2007) Efficacy of diclofenac in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis in predominantly high-risk patients: a randomized double-blind prospective trial. Gastrointest Endosc 66: 1126–1132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ding X, Chen M, Huang S et al (2012) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prevention of post-ERCPpancreatitis: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 76: 1152–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Elmunzer BJ, Higgins PDR, Saini SD et al (2013) Does rectal indomethacin eliminate the need for prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP? Post hoc efficacy and cost-benefit analyses using prospective clinical trial data. Am J Gastroenterol 108: 410–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Akbar A, Abu Dayyeh BK, Baron TH et al (2013) Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are superior to pancreatic duct stents in preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11: 778–783

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rabenstein T, Bachmann A, Radespiel-Tröger M, Schneider HT (2012) Risikofaktoren für Infektionen. Endheu 25: 235–243

    Google Scholar 

  41. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G et al (1998) Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a pospectivemulticenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 48: 1–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rabenstein T, Ell C, Schneider HT et al (1998) Clinical significance of risk factor analysis for complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy. Gastrointest Endosc 127: 411

    Google Scholar 

  43. Vila JJ, Artifon EL, Otoch JP (2012) Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications: how can they be avoided? World J Gastrointest Endosc 4: 241–246

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brand M, Bizos D, O’Farrell P Jr (2010) Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10: CD007345

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kwak MS, Jang ES, Ryu JK et al (2013) Risk factors of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography bacteremia. Gut Liver 7: 228–233

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Kahaleh M, Freeman M (2012) Prevention and management of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications. Clin Endosc 45: 305–312

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Anderson DJ, Shimpi RA, McDonald JR et al (2008) Infectious complications following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an automated surveillance system for detecting postprocedure bacteremia. Am J Infect Control 36: 592–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Davis AJ, Kolios G, Alveyn CG, Robertson DA (1998) Antibiotic prophylaxis for ERCP: a comparison of oral ciprofloxacin with intravenous cephazolin in the prophylaxis of high-risk patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 12: 207–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Aumeran C, Poincloux L, Souweine B et al (2010) Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 42: 895–899

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Harris A, Chan AC, Torres-Vierra C (1999) Metaanalysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in ERCP. Endoscopy 31: 718–724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Bai Y, Gao F, Gao J et al (2009) Prophylactic antibiotics cannot prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced cholangitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 38: 126–130

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Jethwa P, Breuning E, Bhati C et al (2007) The microbiological impact of pre-operative biliary drainage on patients undergoing hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HPB) surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 25: 1175–1180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ngu W, Jones M, Neal CP et al (2013) Preoperative biliary drainage for distal biliary obstruction and post-operative infectious complications. ANZ J Surg 83: 280–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Morris-Stiff G, Tamijmarane A, Tan YM et al (2011) Pre-operative stenting is associated with a higher prevalence of post-operative complications following pancreatoduodenectomy. Int J Surg 9: 145–149

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA et al (1999) Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery 126: 658–663

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Salminen P, Laine S, Gullichsen R (2008) Severe and fatal complications after ERCP: analysis of 2555 procedures in a single experienced center. Surg Endosc 22: 1965–1970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Alfieri S, Rosa F, Cina C et al (2013) Management of duodeno-pancreato-biliary perforations after ERCP: outcomes from an Italian tertiary referral center. Surg Endosc 27: 2005–2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kim J, Lee SH, Paik WH et al (2012) Clinical outcomes of patients who experienced perforation associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 26(11): 3293–3300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K et al (2002) ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy 34: 293–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Baron TH, Gostout CJ, Herman L (2000) Hemoclip repair of a sphincterotomy-induced duodenal perforation. Gastrointest Endosc 52: 566–568

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Palm J, Saarela A, MäkelÄ J (2007) Safety of Erlangen precut papillotomy – an analyses of 1044 consecutive ERCP examinations in a single institution. J Clin Gastroenterol 41: 528–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Manes G, Di Giorgio P, Repici A et al (2009) An analysis of factors associated with the development of complications in patients undergoing precut sphincterotomy: a prospective, controlled, randomized, multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 104: 2412–2417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni A (2003) Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopicretrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 35: 830–834

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J (2004) Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 60: 721–773

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Freeman ML (2002) Adverse outcomes of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 56(6 Suppl): S273–S282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Schmidt H, Drossel R, HUschner W et al (2001) Risken und Komplikationen der endoskopischen Papillotomie – Ergebnisse einer prospektiven Studie. Endo Heute 14: 163–173

    Google Scholar 

  67. Barthet M, Lesavre N, Desjeux A et al (2002) Complications of endoscopic spincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 34: 991–997

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mirjalili SA, Stringer SD (2011) The arterial supply of the major duodenal papilla and its relevance to endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy 43: 307–311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Verma D, Kapadia A, Adler DG (2007) Pure versus mixed electrosurgical current for endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a meta-analysis of adverse outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 66: 283–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Abdel Samie A, Theilmann L (2013) Endoscopic procedures in patients under clopidogrel/dual antiplatelet therapy: to do or not to do? J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 22: 33–36

    Google Scholar 

  71. Fuchs ES, Jakobs R (2012) Elektive endoskopische Eingriffe unter oraler Antikoagulation oder Thrombozyteninhibierung. Endo Heute 25: 119–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Shah JN, Marson F, Binmoeller KF (2010) Temporary self-expandable metal stent placement for treatment of post-sphincterotomy bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 72: 1274–1278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. T. Rabenstein und H.J. Schulz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diakonissen‐Stiftungs‐Krankenhaus Speyer, Hilgardstr. 26, 67346, Speyer, Deutschland

    T. Rabenstein

  2. Klinik für Innere Medizin I, Sana Klinikum Lichtenberg, Berlin‐Lichtenberg, Deutschland

    H.J. Schulz

Authors
  1. T. Rabenstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H.J. Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Rabenstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rabenstein, T., Schulz, H. Komplikationen nach ERCP. Gastroenterologe 9, 222–236 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-014-0873-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11377-014-0873-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation