Skip to main content
Log in

A new grading system to evaluate the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

  • Liver, Pancreas, and Biliary Tract
  • Published:
Journal of Gastroenterology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The aim of our study was to develop a system to grade the risk of the procedures summarized under the term endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods

In a controlled prospective study, we evaluated the early complications of ERCP in 526 consecutive patients at a single endoscopy center in a defined period. The relation between endoscopic procedures and related complications was analyzed for significance. A grading system based on significant risk factors and clinical implications was developed.

Results

Of the ERCP procedures, 29% were diagnostic and 71% therapeutic. A total of 45 complications occurred in 42 patients: pancreatitis (2%), perforation (1%), cardiorespiratory problems (0.6%), stent-related complications (0.5%), leakages (1.5%), and bleeding (3%). A native papilla was a significant risk factor for the development of complications (P = 0.046). On the basis of these findings, we defined five groups of ERCP-related complications: nonnative papillae with either diagnostic (A) or therapeutic interventions (B); native papillae with diagnostic (C) or therapeutic (D) interventions; and special therapeutic interventions (E). Complication rates differed significantly between individual groups, A versus D (P = 0.013), A versus E (P = 0.010), B versus D (P = 0.005), and B versus E (P = 0.003), as well as between A/B and C/D (P = 0.003).

Conclusions

A grading system based on differentiating between native and nonnative papillae and diagnostic versus therapeutic procedures demonstrated significantly different complication rates. This grading system has the potential to predict the risk of ERCP-related complications.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:721–731.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dosher PJ. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909–918.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennery MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425–434.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TCK, Wong RCK, Ferrari AP, Montes H, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:652–656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Deans GT, Sedman P, Martin DF, Roxston CMS, Leow CK, Thomas WEG, et al. Are complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy age-related? Gut 1997;41:545–548.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A, Lachter J, Chermech I, Karban A, et al. Outcome and early complications of ERCP: a prospective single center study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:352–355.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Christensen M, Rasmussen V, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Vagal withdrawal during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000;35:96–101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:417–423.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Fröhlich E, Gonvers JJ, Vader JP, Dubois RW, Burnand B. Appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy: risk of complications. Endoscopy 1999;31:684–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costen F, Beradinis F, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998:48:1–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Greenen JE, Russell RCG, Meyers WC. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383–393.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cotton PB. Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:511–514.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fleischer DE. Better definitions of endoscopic complications and other negative outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:514–518.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Schutz MS, Abbott RM. Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:535–539.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zuber-Jerger, I., Endlicher, E., Kullmann, F. et al. A new grading system to evaluate the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Gastroenterol 44, 160–165 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-008-2295-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-008-2295-1

Key words

Navigation