Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): lessons learned from population-based national registries: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was introduced more than four decades ago as a diagnostic tool for biliary and pancreatic diseases. Currently, ERCP is mainly used as a therapeutic approach to relieve biliary or pancreatic duct obstruction. Clinical practice has been based on a few large reports and some randomized controlled trials. These data are valuable and important, but the external validity of these reports is limited. Implementation into routine practice should be balanced with the knowledge that these studies were conducted under very specific circumstances. This review was undertaken to describe ERCP results from population-based national registries recorded during routine clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic literature search of the electronic databases Medline Ovid and Embase was conducted. Eligible papers were selected and data were recorded according to the PRISMA criteria.

Results

Thirty-one studies were included: 15 true national population-based and 16 population-level studies. Most studies originated from countries with a governmental public health care system. At least three-quarters of the ERCP procedures are currently therapeutic, and the technical success rate is high (> 90%). The postprocedure 30-day mortality rate ranged between 1 and 5% and was strongly correlated with older age, male sex, emergency admission, and noncancer comorbidities, but exhibited a lower correlation with the annual ERCP volume. Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis or liver cirrhosis should receive particular attention. The risk of developing a bile duct, liver, or pancreas malignancy after ERCP tended to increase, but endoscopic sphincterotomy did not affect this risk.

Conclusion

ERCP is currently mainly used as a therapeutic approach, and the results are generally likely to improve patients’ conditions. A nationwide registry enables better monitoring of routine clinical practice. The collection of valuable information from routine clinical practice in population-based databases may help to improve patient care from best evidence to best practice.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. McCune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H (1968) Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of vater: a preliminary report. Ann Surg 167:752–756

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Classen M, Demling L (1974) Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the papilla of vater and extraction of stones from the choledochal duct (author’s transl). Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) 99:496–497

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K, Tada M, Koli Y (1974) Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointest Endosc 20:148–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coelho-Prabhu N, Shah ND, Van Houten H, Kamath PS, Baron TH (2013) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10-year population-based cohort. BMJ open 3:e002689

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J (2009) Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 70:80–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Glomsaker T, Soreide K, Aabakken L, Soreide JA (2011) A national audit of temporal trends in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in Norway. Scand J Gastroenterol 46:116–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, Kerstan E, Vogel W, Schreiber F (2008) Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 40:625–630

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ, Lande JD, Pheley AM (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335:909–918

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dindo D, Clavien PA (2008) What is a surgical complication? World J Surg 32:939–941

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Colton JB, Curran CC (2009) Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 70:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, Hamlyn A, Logan RF, Martin D, Riley SA, Veitch P, Wilkinson M, Williamson PR, Lombard M, ERCP BSGAo (2007) Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 56:821–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaloy JT, Soreide K, Aabakken L, Soreide JA (2013) Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg 100:373–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Baillie J, Testoni PA (2007) Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP? Gut 56:744–746

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Rutter MD, Rees CJ (2014) Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 46:526–528

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Malheiro R, de Monteiro-Soares M, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M (2014) Methodological quality of guidelines in gastroenterology. Endoscopy 46:513–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Enochsson L, Blohm M, Sandblom G, Jonas E, Hallerbäck B, Lundell L, Österberg J (2018) Inversed relationship between completeness of follow-up and coverage of postoperative complications in gallstone surgery and ERCP: a potential source of bias in patient registers. BMJ Open 8:e019551

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Grol R, Grimshaw J (2003) From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 362:1225–1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8:336–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bodger K, Bowering K, Sarkar S, Thompson E, Pearson MG (2011) All-cause mortality after first ERCP in England: clinically guided analysis of hospital episode statistics with linkage to registry of death. Gastrointest Endosc 74:825–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U, Nilsson M, Löhr M, Persson G (2010) Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 72:1175–1184 (1184 e1171–1173)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Enochsson L, Thulin A, Österberg J, Sandblom G, Persson G (2013) The Swedish Registry of gallstone surgery and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks): a nationwide registry for quality assurance of gallstone surgery. JAMA Surg 148:471–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karlson BM, Ekbom A, Arvidsson D, Yuen J, Krusemo UB (1997) Population-based study of cancer risk and relative survival following sphincterotomy for stones in the common bile duct. Br J Surg 84:1235–1238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lubbe J, Arnelo U, Lundell L, Swahn F, Tornqvist B, Jonas E, Lohr JM, Enochsson L (2015) ERCP-guided cholangioscopy using a single-use system: nationwide register-based study of its use in clinical practice. Endoscopy 47:802–807

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mortensen FV, Jepsen P, Tarone RE, Funch-Jensen P, Jensen LS, Sorensen HT (2008) Endoscopic sphincterotomy and long-term risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based follow-up study. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:745–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Olsson G, Arnelo U, Lundell L, Persson G, Tornqvist B, Enochsson L (2015) The role of antibiotic prophylaxis in routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography investigations as assessed prospectively in a nationwide study cohort. Scand J Gastroenterol 50:924–931

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Olsson G, Lubbe J, Arnelo U, Jonas E, Tornqvist B, Lundell L, Enochsson L (2017) The impact of prophylactic pancreatic stenting on post-ERCP pancreatitis: a nationwide, register-based study. United Eur Gastroenterol J 5:111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Strömberg C, Arnelo U, Enochsson L, Löhr M, Nilsson M (2012) Possible mortality reduction by endoscopic sphincterotomy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a population-based case-control study. Surg Endosc 26:1369–1376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Strömberg C, Bockelman C, Song H, Ye W, Pukkala E, Haglund C, Nilsson M (2016) Endoscopic sphincterotomy and risk of cholangiocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study in Finland and Sweden. Endosc Int Open 4::E1096–E1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Strömberg C, Luo J, Enochsson L, Arnelo U, Nilsson M (2008) Endoscopic sphincterotomy and risk of malignancy in the bile ducts, liver, and pancreas. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 6:1049–1053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Strömberg C, Nilsson M (2011) Nationwide study of the treatment of common bile duct stones in Sweden between 1965 and 2009. Br J Surg 98:1766–1774

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Swahn F, Nilsson M, Arnelo U, Löhr M, Persson G, Enochsson L (2013) Rendezvous cannulation technique reduces post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective nationwide study of 12,718 ERCP procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 108:552–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kalaitzakis E, Toth E (2015) Hospital volume status is related to technical failure and all-cause mortality following ERCP for benign disease. Dig Dis Sci 60:1793–1800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. von Seth E, Arnelo U, Enochsson L, Bergquist A (2015) Primary sclerosing cholangitis increases the risk for pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Liver Int 35:254–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cooper J, Desai S, Scaife S, Gonczy C, Mellinger J (2017) Volume, specialty background, practice pattern, and outcomes in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an analysis of the national inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 31:2953–2958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ekkelenkamp VE, de Man RA, Borg FT, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Glomsaker T, Soreide K, Hoff G, Aabakken L, Soreide JA (2011) Contemporary use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a Norwegian prospective, multicenter study. Scand J Ggastroenterol 46:1144–1151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Glomsaker TB, Hoff G, Kvaloy JT, Soreide K, Aabakken L, Soreide JA (2013) Patient-reported outcome measures after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prospective, multicentre study. Scand J Gastroenterol 48:868–876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hilsden RJ, Romagnuolo J, May GR (2004) Patterns of use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian province. Can J Gastroenterol 18:619–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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. Gastroint Endosc 79:615–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parikh MP, Gupta NM, Thota PN, Lopez R, Sanaka MR (2018) Temporal trends in utilization and outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in acute cholangitis due to choledocholithiasis from 1998 to 2012. Surg Endosc 32:1740–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mehta D, Poojary P, Saha A, Kaur S, Patel S, Chawla L, Kumar A, Simoes P, Busayavalasa D, Nadkarni G, Sanaka M (2018) National trends of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography utilization and outcomes in decompensated cirrhosis. Surg Endosc 33(1):169–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Navaneethan U, Njei B, Zhu X, Kommaraju K, Parsi MA, Varadarajulu S (2017) Safety of ERCP in patients with liver cirrhosis: a national database study. Endosc Int Open 5::E303–E314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pant C, Sferra TJ, Barth BA, Deshpande A, Minocha A, Qureshi WA, Olyaee M, Anderson MP (2014) Trends in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in children within the United States, 2000–2009. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 59:57–60

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Clark CJ, Coe A, Fino NF, Pawa R (2016) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in octogenarians: a population-based study using the nationwide inpatient sample. Endosc Int Open 4:E624–E630

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. James PD, Kaplan GG, Myers RP, Hubbard J, Shaheen AA, Tinmouth J, Yong E, Love J, Heitman SJ (2014) Decreasing mortality from acute biliary diseases that require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:1151–1159 e1156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Adler DG, Lieb JG, Cohen II, Pike J, Park IM, Rizk WG, Sawhney MK, Scheiman MS, Shaheen JM, Sherman NJ, Wani S S (2015) Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 81:54–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R (2007) Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1781–1788

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Chen JJ, Wang XM, Liu XQ, Li W, Dong M, Suo ZW, Ding P, Li Y (2014) Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review of clinical trials with a large sample size in the past 10 years. Eur J Med Res 19:26–26

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ding X, Zhang F, Wang Y (2015) Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surgeon 13:218–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, Elmunzer BJ, Kim KJ, Lennon AM, Khashab MA, Kalloo AN, Singh VK (2015) Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastroint Endosc 81:143–149 (e149)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Shao LM, Chen QY, Chen MY, Cai JT (2009) Can wire-guided cannulation reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24:1710–1715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Kubiliun NM, Adams MA, Akshintala VS, Conte ML, Cote GA, Cotton PB, Dumonceau JM, Elta GH, Fogel EL, Freeman ML, Lehman GA, Naveed M, Romagnuolo J, Scheiman JM, Sherman S, Singh VK, Elmunzer BJ, United States Cooperative for Outcomes Research in E (2015) Evaluation of pharmacologic prevention of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:1231–1239; (quiz e1270–1231)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hall TC, Dennison AR, Garcea G (2012) The diagnosis and management of Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction: a systematic review. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg 397:889–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Kanth R, Samji NS, Inaganti A, Komanapalli SD, Rivera R, Antillon MR, Roy PK (2014) Endotherapy in symptomatic pancreas divisum: a systematic review. Pancreatology 14:244–250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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 

  57. Shi H, Chen S, Swar G, Wang Y, Ying M (2013) Carbon dioxide insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a review and meta-analysis. Pancreas 42:1093–1100

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tse F, Yuan Y (2012) Early routine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography strategy versus early conservative management strategy in acute gallstone pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 5:Cd009779

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bakken IJ, Gystad SO, Christensen OO, Huse UE, Laronningen S, Nygard J, Holmstrom L, Johannesen TB, Moller B, Larsen IK (2012) Comparison of data from the Norwegian patient register and the cancer registry of Norway. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin ny raekke 132:1336–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Barlow L, Westergren K, Holmberg L, Talback M (2009) The completeness of the Swedish Cancer Register: a sample survey for year 1998. Acta Oncol 48:27–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Singh H, Turner D, Xue L, Targownik LE, Bernstein CN (2006) Risk of developing colorectal cancer following a negative colonoscopy examination: evidence for a 10-year interval between colonoscopies. JAMA 295:2366–2373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Blanchard JF, Ludwig S, Wajda A, Dean H, Anderson K, Kendall O, Depew N (1996) Incidence and prevalence of diabetes in Manitoba, 1986–1991. Diabetes Care 19:807–811

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Aylin P, Bottle A, Majeed A (2007) Use of administrative data or clinical databases as predictors of risk of death in hospital: comparison of models. BMJ 334:1044

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Yuen N, O’Shaughnessy P, Thomson A (2017) New classification system for indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography predicts diagnoses and adverse events. Scand J Gastroenterol 52:1457–1465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Voiosu T, Bengus A, Voiosu A, Rimbas M, Zlate A, Haidar A, Baicus C, Mateescu B (2016) Trainee caseload correlates with ERCP success rates but not with procedure-related complications: results from a prospective study (the QUASIE cohort). Endosc Int Open 4::E409–E414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Olafsson S (2017) Swedish registries are promising but of limited value without validation. Scand J Gastroenterol 52:1163–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR (2014) Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 67:267–277

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Enochsson L, Lindberg B, Swahn F, Arnelo U (2004) Intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to remove common bile duct stones during routine laparoscopic cholecystectomy does not prolong hospitalization: a 2-year experience. Surg Endosc 18:367–371

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Matsuda K, Tanaka K, Fujishiro M, Saito Y, Ohtsuka K, Oda I, Katada C, Kato M, Kida M, Kobayashi K, Hoteya S, Horimatsu T, Kodashima S, Matsuda T, Muto M, Yamamoto H, Ryozawa S, Iwakiri R, Kutsumi H, Miyata H, Kato M, Haruma K, Fujimoto K, Uemura N, Kaminishi M, Tajiri H (2018) Design paper: Japan Endoscopy Database (JED): a prospective, large database project related to gastroenterological endoscopy in Japan. Dig Endosc 30:5–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The expert help of the medical librarians Jannicke Rusnes Lie, MA, and Elisabeth Hunstad Molland, Cand.mag, to design and complete the electronic literature searches is greatly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Stavanger University Hospital, POB 8100, 4068, Stavanger, Norway

    Jon Arne Søreide

  2. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Jon Arne Søreide

  3. Department of Gastroenterology, Stavanger University Hospital, Stavanger, Norway

    Lars Normann Karlsen

  4. Department of Clinical Science and Education Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Gabriel Sandblom

  5. Department of Surgery, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden

    Gabriel Sandblom

  6. Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

    Lars Enochsson

Authors
  1. Jon Arne Søreide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lars Normann Karlsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriel Sandblom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lars Enochsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Arne Søreide.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

The authors Drs. Jon Arne Søreide, Lars Normann Karlsen, Gabriel Sandblom, and Lars Enochsson have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 25 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Søreide, J.A., Karlsen, L.N., Sandblom, G. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): lessons learned from population-based national registries: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 33, 1731–1748 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06734-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06734-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation