Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Role of Osmolality of Contrast Media in the Development of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Metanalysis

  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The role of osmolality of contrast media (CM) in the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is debated. We therefore performed a metanalysis to determine whether osmolality affects the incidence of PEP. A literature search of English-language studies was performed using computerized databases and manual searching of abstracts and article bibliographies. Randomized controlled trials comparing the incidence of PEP associated with high- and low-osmolality contrast media (HOCM, LOCM) were considered. The outcome assessed was clinical pancreatitis as evidenced by both elevation of pancreatic enzymes and pain. Data were analyzed using logistic regression with terms for study and osmolality. Fisher's exact test was done to compare PEP rates. Homogeneity between studies was indicated by the nonsignificance of the study effect in the logistic regression model. Logistic regression also indicated no difference in PEP rates between LOCM and HOCM (P=0.399). Comparison of PEP rates in both groups using Fisher's exact test did not indicate a difference in any individual study (all P values >0.05). Due to the large variation of study sample sizes, we repeated the analysis by creating three study groups. The effect of osmolality was invariant to how the data were combined. The results of this metanalysis indicate that there is no significant difference between HOCM and LOCM with respect to clinical PEP.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS, Shaw MJ, Snady HW, Erickson RV, Moore JP, Roel JP: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 54(4):425-434, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sherman S, Lehman GA: ERCP and endoscopic sphincterotomy induced pancreatitis. Pancreas 6:350-367, 1991

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  4. Haber G: Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 51(1):1-7, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chen YK, Foliente RL, Santoro MJ, Walter MH, Collen MJ: Complications of endoscopic sphicterotomy: a prospective series with emphasis on increased risk associated with non dilated bile ducts and sphicter of Oddi dysfunction. Am J Gastroenterol 89:327-333, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  6. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, De Berardinis F, De Bernardin M, Ederle A, Fina P, Fratton A: Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 48:1-10, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bub H, Burner W, Riemann JF, Stolte M: Morphology of the pancreatic ductal epithelial after traumatization of the papilla of Vater or endoscopic retrograde pancreaticography with various contrast media in cats. Scand J Gastroenterol 18:581-592, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  8. Saari A, Kivisaari L, Standertskjold-Nordenstam CG, Brackett K, Schroder T: Experimental pancreatography: A comparison of three contrast media. Scand J Gastroenterol 23(1):53-58, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kimmey M, Al-Kawas F, Carr-Locke D, Edmundowicz SA, Gannan RA, Jamidar PA, Saeed ZA, Stein TN: Technology assessment status evaluation. Radiographic contrast media used in ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 43:647-651, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  10. Osnes M, Skjennald A, Larsen S: A comparison of a new non-ionic (metrizamide) and a dissociable (metroizoate) contrast medium in endoscopic retrograde pancreaticography (ERP). Scand J Gastroenterol 12:821-825, 1977

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cunliffe WJ, Cobden I, Lavelle MI, Lendrum R, Tait NP, Venables CW: A randomized prospective study comparing two contrast media in ERCP. Endoscopy (Suppl) 19:201-202, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  12. O'Connor HJ, Ellis WR, Manning AP, Lintott DJ, McMahon MJ, Axon AT: Iopamidol as contrast medium in endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: A prospective randomized comparison with diatrizoate. Endoscopy 20(5):244-247, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  13. Banerjee A, Grainger S, Thompson R: Trial of low versus high osmolar contrast media in endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. BJCP 44(11):445-446, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  14. Barkin JS, Casal GL, Reiner DK, Goldberg RI, Phillips RS, Kaplan S: A comparative study of contrast agents for endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Am J Gastroentrol 86(10):1437-1441, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rodriguez J, Stoltenberg P, Avots A, Nipper M.L, Riggs M, Lasater J, Dyck WP: A prospective randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of iohexol 180 and diatrizoate 60% as contrast agents for ERCP [abstract]. Gastroenterology 100:297, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hamilton I, Lintott DJ, Rothwell J, Axon AT: Metrizamide as contrast medium in endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreaticography. Clin Radiol 33(3):293-295, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hannigan BF, Keeling PW, Slavin B, Thompson RP: Hyperamylasemia after ERCP with ionic and non-ionic contrast media. Gastrointest Endosc 31(2):109-110, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jensen AR, Malchow-Moller A, Matzen P, Larsen JE, Moller F, Andersen JR, Magid E: A randomized trial of iohexol versus amidotrizoate in endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Scand J Gastroenterol 1:83-86, 1985

    Google Scholar 

  19. Makela P, Dean PB: The frequency of hyperamylasemia after ERCP with diatrizoate and iohexol. Eur J Radiol 6(4):303-304, 1986

    Google Scholar 

  20. Silverman W, Ruffolo T, Rogers D, Hawes R: Post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); frequency with ionic and non-ionic contrast media in high risk patients [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol 86:192, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sherman S, Hawes RH, Rathgaber SW, Uzer MF, Smith MT, Khusro QE, Silverman WB, Earle DT, Lehman GA: Post-ERCP pancreatitis: randomized, prospective study comparing a low-and high osmolality contrast agent. Gastrointest Endosc 40(4):422-427, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Bedford RA, Johanson J, Cass O, Sherman S, Hogan WJ, Ryan M, Silverman W, Edmundowicz S: A comparision of nonionic versus ionic contrast media: results of a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 42(4):312-316, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kruse A, Brock A, Rodenberg J, Nowakowska-Duawa E, Bjartveit K: Iopenol (Imagopaque 250) compared with diatrizoate (Urografin 219) in endoscopic retrograde changio-pancreatography (ERCP): A clinical trial assessing safety (adverse events and S-pancreatic iso-amylase and diagnostic information (VAS). Eur Radiol 7 (Suppl 4):S131-S134, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  24. Johnson GK, Geenen JE, Johanson JF, Sherman S, Hogan WJ, Cass O: Evaluation of post-ERCP pancreatitis: potential causes noted during controlled study of differing contrast media. Gastrointest Endosc 46(3):217-222, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  25. Martin DF, England RE, Rosch T, Biehl E, Jeschke B, Heldwein D, Klauser A, Klaveness A, Kristoffersen D: Diagnostic quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Comparison between iodixanol and iopromide. Endoscopy 32(10):783-787, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  26. Goebel C, Hardt P, Doppl W, Temme H, Hackstein N, Klor HU: Frequency of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with iopromid or iotrolan: a randomized trial. Eur Radiol 10:677-680, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N: Endoscopic sphincterotomy, complications and their management. An attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37:383-393, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cotton PB: Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 40(4):514-518, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17:1-12, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cotton PB, Brazer SR: Different contrast agents and development of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde pancreatography [letter]. Am J Gastroenterol 87(5):682, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ioannou G, Doust J, Rockey DC: Terlipressin for acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD002147, 2001

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32610, USA

    Suku George, Arvind A. Kulkarni, Chris E. Forsmark & Peter Draganov

  2. Division of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 32610, USA

    Gary Stevens

Authors
  1. Suku George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arvind A. Kulkarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris E. Forsmark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Draganov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

George, S., Kulkarni, A.A., Stevens, G. et al. Role of Osmolality of Contrast Media in the Development of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Metanalysis. Dig Dis Sci 49, 503–508 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:DDAS.0000020511.98230.20

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:DDAS.0000020511.98230.20

Search

Navigation