Current Gastroenterology Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 112–119 | Cite as

Predicting and preventing Post-ERCP pancreatitis

  • John Baillie
Article

Abstract

Pancreatitis is rightly the most feared complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Ten percent to 15% of cases of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are severe by clinical and radiologic criteria. Such cases carry significant morbidity and mortality and are responsible for the vast majority of ERCP-related deaths. The prediction and prevention of PEP have been of great interest to endoscopists since the introduction of ERCP 30 years ago. Prediction and diagnosis of PEP have become more accurate with the widespread availability of serum amylase estimation. A variety of cytokines (eg, interleukin [IL]-1, IL-6, and IL-8) and acute phase reactants (eg, C-reactive protein) are also elevated in the serum in acute pancreatitis, and these form the basis of evolving tests for PEP. Urine testing (for amylase) in acute pancreatitis is obsolete, but it may soon undergo a revival in the form of a rapid (3-minute) dipstick test for trypsinogen-2, a sensitive and specific test for this disease. The prevention of PEP takes multiple forms. The following steps are recommended for clinicians: 1) avoid ERCP when other, less invasive or noninvasive imaging tests can do the job (eg, CT or magnetic resonance imaging); 2) avoid highrisk (of PEP) procedures, such as needle-knife papillotomy, balloon dilation of the biliary sphincter, and pancreatic sphincterotomy, and take steps to reduce risk when these procedures are unavoidable; 3) ensure that those who perform ERCP have adequate training and experience; and 4) consider pharmacologic intervention. Despite a depressing catalog of drug interventions that have failed over the years (eg, antihistamines, anticholinergics, and corticosteroids), three agents have recently shown promise: somatostatin; its octapeptide analogue, octreotide; and gabexate mesylate, a protease inhibitor.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Thompson S, Hendy W, McFarlane G, Davidson A: Epidemiology and outcome of acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1987, 74:398–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kusske AM, Ronione AJ, Reber HA: Cytokines and acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 1996, 110:639–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cotton PB: Outcomes of endoscopic procedures: struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 1994, 40:514–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:909–918. Important large, prospective multicenter study showing an overall complication rate for biliary sphincterotomy of 9.8% (all indications), the majority being pancreatitis. This study also showed that needle-knife papillotomy in the setting of suspected SO dysfunction carries a high risk of pancreatitis, and that those who perform more than one sphincterotomy a week have fewer overall complications than do those who perform fewer sphincterotomies.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al.: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective study, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:425–434. A landmark prospective study of 1963 consecutive ERCP procedures from 11 centers.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al.: Same day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complication study: the MESH group. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:580–586.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ho KY, Montes H, Sossenheimer MJ, et al.: Features that may predict hospital admission following outpatient therapeutic ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:587–592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thomas PR, Sengupta S: Prediction of pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography by the 4 hour post-procedure amylase level. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001, 16:923–926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Testoni PA, Caporuscio S, Bagnolo F, Letta F: Twenty-four-hour serum amylase predicting pancreatic reaction after endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy 1999, 31:131–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oezcueruemez-Porsch M, Kunz D, Hardt PD, et al.: Diagnostic relevance of interleukin pattern, acute-phase proteins and procalcitonin in early phase of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Dig Dis Sci 1998, 43:1763–1769.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kemppainen E, Hedstrom J, Puolakkainen P, et al.: Increased serum tryspinogen 2 and trypsin 2-alpha 1 antitrypsin complex values identify endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography induced pancreatitis with high accuracy. Gut 1997, 41:690–695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kemppainen E, Hedstrom J, Puolakkainen P, et al.: Urinary tryspinogen-2 strip tests in detecting ERCP-induced pancreatitis. Endoscopy 1997, 29:247–251.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cotton PB: ERCP is most dangerous for people who need it least. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:535–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levy AD: Noninvasive imaging approach to patients with suspected hepatobiliary disease. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2001, 4:132–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pineau BC, Knapple WC, Spicer KM, et al.: Cholecystokininstimulated mebrofenin (99mTc-Choletec) hepatobiliary scintigraphy in asymptomatic post-cholecystectomy individuals: assessment of specificity, interobserver reliability and reproducibility. Am J Gastroenterol 2001, 96:3106–3109.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pannu HK, Fishman EK: Complications of ERCP: spectrum of abnormalities demonstrated by CT. Radiographics 2001, 21:1441–1453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor AL, Little AF, Hennessy OF, et al.: Prospective assessment of MRCP for non-invasive imaging of the biliary tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2002, 55:17–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Prat F, Edery J, Meduri B, et al.: Early endoscopic ultrasound of the bile duct before endoscopic sphincterotomy for acute pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:724–729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baillie J: Treatment of acute biliary pancreatitis [editorial]. N Engl J Med 1997, 336:286–287.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mergener K, Suhocki P, Enns R, et al.: Endoscopic nasobiliary drain placement facilitates subsequent percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:240–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS, et al.: Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: a prospective study of training in ERCP. Ann Intern Med 1996, 125:983–989. The first prospective study to show conclusively that 180 to 200 ERCPs are required before trainees attain minimum competence. This study has made a significant impact on how gastroenterology fellows are trained.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baillie J: Needle knife papillotomy revisited [editorial]. Gastrointest Endosc 1997, 46:282–284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacMathuna P: Endoscopic treatment of bile duct stones: should we cut or dilate the sphincter? Am J Gastroenterol 1997, 92:1411–1412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Binmoeller KF, Schafer TW: Endoscopic management of bile duct stones. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001, 32:106–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Huibregtse K: Endoscopic biliary dilation for removal of bile duct stones: specialized indications only. Endoscopy 2001, 33:620–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carr-Locke DL: Can endoscopic balloon dilation really preserve sphincter of Oddi function? [editorial]. Gut 2001, 49:608–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sherman S, Troiano FP, Hawes RH, Lehman G: Sphincter of Oddi manometry: decreased risk of clinical pancreatitis with use of a modified aspiration catheter. Gastrointest Endosc 1990, 36:462–466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tarnasky P, Cunningham J, Cotton P, et al.: Pancreatic sphincter hypertension increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 1997, 29:285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tarnasky PR, Palesch YY, Cunningham JT, et al.: Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology 1998, 115:1518–1524.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenblatt ML, Catalono MF, Alcocer E, Geenen JE: Comparison of sphincter of Oddi manometry, fatty meal sonography and hepatobiliary scintigraphy in the diagnosis of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Testoni PA, Bagnolo F, Andrulli A, et al.: Octreotide 24 hour prophylaxis in patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis: results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001, 15:965–972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Poon RT, Yeung C, Lo CM, et al.: Prophylactic effect of somatostatin on post-ERCP pancreatitis: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 1999, 49:660–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Binmoeller KF, Dumas R, Harns AG, Delmont JP: Effect of somatostatin analog octreotide on the human sphincter of Oddi. Dig Dis Sci 1992, 37:773–777.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Deviere J, Le Moine O, Van Laethem JL, et al.: Interleukin 10 reduces the incidence of pancreatitis after therapeutic ERCP. Gastroenterology 2001, 120:498–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cavallini G, Tittobello A, Frulloni L, et al.: Gabexate for the prevention of pancreatic damage related to endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography: Gabexate in Digestive Endoscopy Italian Group. N Engl J Med 1996, 335:919–923. Multicenter double-blind study of 418 patients randomized to receive gabexate or placebo (30-90 minutes before ERCP and continuing for 12 hours thereafter, by IV infusion). Post-ERCP pancreatitis rate was significantly reduced in the gabexate-treated group (8% vs 2%, P=0.03).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Haber G: Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis [editorial]. Gastrointest Endosc 2000, 51:100–103. Outstanding must-read overview of this subject by an international expert on ERCP.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Andriulli A, Leandro G, Clemente R, et al.: Meta-analysis of somatostatin, octreotide and gabexate mesilate in the therapy of acute pancreatitis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1998, 12:237–245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kingsnorth AN, Galloway SW, Formela LJ: Randomized, double-blind phase II trial of lexipafant, a platelet-activating factor antagonist, in human acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1995, 82:1414–1420.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McKay CJ, Curran, Sharples C, et al.: Prospective placebocontrolled randomized trial of lexipafant in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1997, 84:1239–1243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson CD, Kingsnorth AN, Imrie CW, et al.: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study of a platelet activating factor antagonist, lexipafant, in the treatment and prevention of organ failure in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Gut 2001, 48:62–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Keck T, Balcom JH, Antoniu BA, et al.: Regional effects of nafamostat, a novel protease and complement inhibitor, on severe necrotizing pancreatitis. Surgery 2001, 130:175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Bedford RA, et al.: A comparison of non-ionic versus ionic contrast media: results of a prospective, multicenter study. Midwest Pancreaticobiliary Study Group. Gastrointest Endosc 1995, 42:312–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Baillie
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologyDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations