The importance of early recognition in management of ERCP-related perforations
- 105 Downloads
Iatrogenic perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare events, carrying with it a mortality of up to 8%. Given the rarity of this adverse event, there remains limited data and continued uncertainties when choosing therapeutic strategies. Our aims were to evaluate the management of ERCP-related perforations and compare outcomes based on timing of recognition.
The endoscopic databases of two tertiary care centers were interrogated to identify consecutive adult patients who sustained ERCP-related perforation over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2016. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract demographic data, perforation type, management strategies, clinical data, and patient outcomes.
14,045 ERCP’s were performed during our 10-year study period. Sixty-three patients (average age 62.3 ± 2.38 years, 76% female) with ERCP-related perforations were included. Stapfer I perforations were found in 14 (22.2%) patients, Stapfer II in 24 (38.1%), and Stapfer III and IV perforations were identified in 16 (25.4%) and 9 (14.28%), respectively. Forty-seven (74.6%) perforations were recognized immediately during the ERCP, whereas 16 (25.4%) were recognized late. Endoscopic therapy was attempted in 35 patients in whom perforations were identified immediately, and was technically successful in 33 (94.3%). In all, 4 (1 immediate/ 3 delayed) patients required percutaneous drainage and 9 (5 immediate/ 4 delayed) surgery. Length of hospital stay, ICU admission were significantly shorter and incidence of SIRS was significantly lower when perforation was recognized immediately.
Immediate recognition of ERCP-related perforations leads to more favorable patient outcomes; with lower incidence of SIRS, less need for ICU level care, and shorter hospital stay.
KeywordsEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Iatrogenic perforation
JGB concept, design, data analysis, drafting the article; ZS manuscript revision; JB data collection and analysis; JE data analysis and collection; PH data collection, manuscript revision; GDL manuscript revision; DSE manuscript revision; KD manuscript revision; TH study design and data collection; MD manuscript revision; RCF manuscript revision; WGH manuscript revision; SMS manuscript revision; CH manuscript revision; WCC manuscript revision; SE manuscript revision; DKM concept, design, manuscript revision; VMK concept, design, data analysis, and critical revision of the article.
Compliance with ethical standards
Dr. Maria B. Majella Doyle receives speaking fees from Novartis; Dr William G Hawkins reports other from Accuronix; Dr. Chet Hammil reports personal fees from Medtronics; Dr. William C. Chapman receives personal fees from Novartis, XOR Labs Toronto and Pathfinder; Dr. Steven Edmundowicz receives personal fees from Olympus and Elsevier publications. Also receives personal fees from Check-cap, Motus, Freehold Surgical, Elira, Paion, Orchestra Medical, Medtronic and Spironetics, Dr. Daniel K Mullady receives personal fees from Boston Scientific; Jason G Bill, Zachary Smith, Joseph Brancheck, Jeffrey Elsner, Paul Hobbs, Gabriel D Lang, Dayna S Early, Koushik Das, Thomas Hollander, Ryan C. Fields, Steven M. Strasberg, and Vladimir Kushnir have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 21.Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RM, Sibbald WJ (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 101(6):1644–1655Google Scholar
- 22.Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS (2013) Acute pancreatitis classification working G: classification of acute pancreatitis–2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62(1):102–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar