Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Complications of Endoscopic and Radiologic Investigation of Biliary Tract Disorders

  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The investigation and treatment of disorders of the human biliary tree depend considerably on invasive endoscopic and radiologic procedures. These are associated with a significant risk of complications, some of which can be fatal. This review looks at these complications through the lens of 40 years of publications in the medical literature, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of their current classification, diagnosis, and treatment.

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

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K, et al.: ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy: quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:S29–34. Quality assurance guidelines for the practice of ERCP , produced by a joint task force of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). This article should be required reading for all ERCP endoscopists.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mergener K. Defining complications of GI endoscopy: past, present, and future. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:790–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. • Mergener K: Defining and measuring endoscopic complications: more questions than answers. Gastrointest Endosc Clin NA 2007; 17:1–9. An in-depth review of the problems that arise when we try to define and measure complications of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. •• Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al.: A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71:446–54. A position paper by a group of experts brought together by the ASGE Quality Task Force to create a framework for future definition and measurement of endoscopic complications.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rochester JS, Jaffe DL: Minimizing complications in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. In: Ginsberg GG (ed). Minimizing endoscopic complications. Gastrointest Endosc Clin NA. 2007; 17:105–28.

  6. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:909–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;48:1–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:417–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:721–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al. Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2007; 39:793–9. This article describes a large, prospective study of ERCP complications from the United Kingdom.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:31–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11, 497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:80–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez-Gonzalez FJ, Naranjo-Rodriguez A, Mata-Tapia I, et al. ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:220–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Varadarajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM, Eloubeidi MA. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:338–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;37:383–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:425–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Freeman ML, Guda NM. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:845–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elta GH, Barnett JL, Wille RT, et al. Pure cut electrocautery current for sphincterotomy causes less post-procedure pancreatitis than blended current. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:149–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mishkin D, Carpenter S, Croffie J, et al. ASGE technology status evaluation report: radiographic contrast media used in ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:480–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tarnasky PR, Palesch YK, Cunningham JT, et al. Pancreatic stenting prevents pancreatitis after biliary sphincterotomy in patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:1518–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singh P, Das A, Isenberg G, et al. Does prophylactic pancreatic stent placement reduce the risk of post-ERCP acute pancreatitis? A meta-analysis of controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:544–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vasconez C, Llach J, Bordas JM, et al. Injection treatment of hemorrhage induced by endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy. 1998;30:37–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferreira LE, Fatima J, Baron TH. Clinically significant delayed post-sphincterotomy bleeding: a twelve year single center experience. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol. 2007;53:215–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Katsinelos P, Mimidis K, Paroutoglou G, et al. Needle-knife papillotomy: a safe and effective technique in experienced hands. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;51:349–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Enns RA, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, et al. ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy. 2002;34:293–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1781–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Genzlinger JL, McPhee MS, Fisher JK, et al. Significance of retroperitoneal air after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1267–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Baron TH, Gostout CJ, Herman L. Hemoclip repair of a sphincterotomy-induced duodenal perforation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;52:566–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Faylona JM, Qadir A, Chan AC, et al. Small-bowel perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy. Endoscopy. 1999;31:546–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy and biliary drainage in patients with cholangitis due to common bile duct stones. Am J Gastroenterol. 1995;90:233–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. •• Banerjee S, Shen B, Baron TH, et al.: ASGE Practice Guideline. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67:791–8. This is the current ASGE Standard of Practice guideline on antibiotic prophylaxis for endoscopic procedures.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ferrucci Jr JT. Mueller PR, Harbin WP: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: technique, results, and complications. Radiology. 1980;135:1–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sarr MG, Kaufman SL, Cameron JL. Percutaneous and operative transhepatic biliary intervention. Indications, technique, complications and management. Probl Gen Surgery. 1985;2:31–43.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Society of Interventional Radiology: Health and Inventory Information for Quality. Available at http://www.hi-iq.com. Accessed December 2010.

  35. •• Saad WE, Wallace MJ, Wojak JC, et al.: Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, biliary drainage, and percutaneous cholecystostomy. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2010; 21:789–95. This article describes the best practice guidelines for percutaneous cholangiography established by the Society of Interventional Radiology.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Carrasco CH, Zounoza J, Bechtel WJ. Malignant biliary obstruction: complications of percutaneous biliary drainage. Radiology. 1984;152:343–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Gunther RW, Schild H, Thelen M. Review article: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: experience with 311 procedures. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1988;11:65–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Mueller PR, van Sonnenberg E, Gerrucci Jr JT. Percutaneous biliary drainage: Technical and catheter related problems in 200 procedures. AJR. 1982;138:17–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hamlin JA, Friedman M, Stein MG, Bray JF. Percutaneous biliary drainage: complications of 118 consecutive catheterizations. Radiology. 1986;158:199–202.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Yee ACN, Ho CS. Complications of percutaneous biliary drainage: benign vs malignant diseases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1987;148:1207–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Savader SJ, Trerotola SO, Merine DS, et al. Hemobilia after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: treatment with transcatheter embolotherapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1992;3:345–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ozden I, Tekant Y, Bilge O, et al. Endoscopic and radiologic interventions as the leading causes of severe cholangitis in a tertiary referral center. Am J Surg. 2005;189:702–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Wayne PH, Whelan Jr JG. Susceptibility testing of biliary bacteria obtained before bile duct manipulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140:1185–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Spies JB, Rosen RJ, Lebowitz AS. Antibiotic prophylaxis in vascular and interventional radiology: a rational approach. Radiology. 1988;166:381–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Draganov PV, Forsmark CE. Prospective evaluation of adverse reactions to iodine-containing contrast media after ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:1098–106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Draganov PV, Cotton PB. Iodinated contrast sensitivity in ERCP. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:1398–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cochran ST. Anaphylactoid reactions to radiocontrast media. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2005;5:28–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

Conflicts of interest: K. Mergener: none.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GI Hospitalist Program, Digestive Health Specialists, 3209 South 23rd Street, Suite 340, Tacoma, WA, 98405, USA

    Klaus Mergener

  2. Interventional Endoscopy, Tacoma General Hospital, Tacoma, WA, USA

    Klaus Mergener

Authors
  1. Klaus Mergener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Mergener.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mergener, K. Complications of Endoscopic and Radiologic Investigation of Biliary Tract Disorders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 13, 173–181 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-011-0179-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-011-0179-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation