Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 55(2); 2022 > Article
Original Article Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones
Hirokazu Saito1,orcid, Yoshihiro Kadono2orcid, Takashi Shono3orcid, Kentaro Kamikawa4orcid, Atsushi Urata4orcid, Jiro Nasu5orcid, Haruo Imamura4orcid, Ikuo Matsushita3orcid, Tatsuyuki Kakuma6orcid, Shuji Tada1orcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2022;55(2):263-269.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2021.153
Published online: November 12, 2021

1Department of Gastroenterology, Kumamoto City Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

2Department of Gastroenterology, Tsuruta Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

3Department of Gastroenterology, Kumamoto Chuo Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

4Department of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

5Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Kumamoto Chuo Hospital, Kumamoto, Japan

6Department of Biostatics Center, Medical School, Kurume University, Fukuoka, Japan

Correspondence: Hirokazu Saito Department of Gastroenterology, Kumamoto City Hospital, 4-1-60, Higashimachi, Higashi-ku, Kumamoto City, Kumamoto, 862-8505, Japan Tel: +81-96-365-1711, Fax: +81-96-365-1712, E-mail: arnestwest@yahoo.co.jp
• Received: May 10, 2021   • Revised: June 4, 2021   • Accepted: July 2, 2021

Copyright © 2022 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 4,461 Views
  • 284 Download
  • 8 Web of Science
  • 9 Crossref
  • 8 Scopus
prev next
  • Background/Aims
    Difficult biliary cannulation is an important risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Therefore, this study aimed to identify the factors that predict difficult cannulation for common bile duct stones (CBDS) to reduce the risk for PEP.
  • Methods
    This multicenter retrospective study included 1,406 consecutive patients with native papillae who underwent ERCP for CBDS. Factors predicting difficult cannulation for CBDS were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.
  • Results
    Univariate analysis showed that six factors significantly predicted difficult cannulation: ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists, low-volume center, absence of acute cholangitis, normal serum bilirubin, intradiverticular papilla, and type of major duodenal papilla. Multivariate analysis identified ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; p<0.001), low-volume center (OR, 1.6; p<0.001), intradiverticular papilla (OR, 1.3; p=0.007), normal serum bilirubin (OR, 1.3; p=0.038), and absence of acute cholangitis (OR, 1.3; p=0.049) as factors significantly predicting difficult cannulation for CBDS.
  • Conclusions
    Initial cannulation by an experienced endoscopist, early rescue cannulation, or early takeover by an experienced endoscopist should be considered when performing ERCP for CBDS in the presence of factors predicting difficult cannulation.
Common bile duct stones (CBDS) are common worldwide in the field of gastroenterology. Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is considered the standard treatment for CBDS, it is a technically challenging procedure. Moreover, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), which is closely related to difficult biliary cannulation, has been identified as the most common and serious post-ERCP complication, with an incidence rate of 3%–10% [1-3].
Difficult biliary cannulation is a well-known risk factor for PEP [1-3]. Given the benign nature of CBDS, identifying factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation for CBDS is essential in reducing the risk of PEP. Although many studies have examined factors associated with difficult biliary cannulation for pancreatobiliary diseases [4-9], only a few have focused on CBDS.
Accordingly, prospective studies have shown that biliary cannulation lasting >5 min was a significant risk factor for the incidence of PEP [10,11]. Despite the various definitions for difficult biliary cannulation based on duration, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline for papillary cannulation defines difficult biliary cannulation as that which exceeds >5 min [12].
The current study examined the factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation for CBDS based on the ESGE guidelines’ definition of difficult biliary cannulation.
Study design
This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the electronic medical records of 1,406 consecutive patients with native papilla who had received therapeutic ERCP for CBDS between April 2012 and February 2020 at the Kumamoto Chuo Hospital, Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital, and Kumamoto City Hospital in Japan. Patients with a history of Billroth-II gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y reconstruction, with biliary pancreatitis, whose CBDS was not identified during ERCP, and whose major duodenal papilla were not visible using a side-viewing duodenoscope were excluded. Approval was obtained from the institutional review boards of each participating institution. This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Consent was obtained using an opt-out approach. We selected possible predictive factors for difficult biliary cannulation with reference to the ESGE guidelines and previous literature [4-9,12-15].
Study definitions
Difficult biliary cannulation was defined as that which exceeded 5 min after visualization of the major duodenal papilla, based on the ESGE guideline for papillary cannulation [12] or unsuccessful biliary cannulation. Non-expert endoscopists were defined as those who had experienced <200 ERCP procedures throughout their careers [16,17]. The reference value for serum bilirubin utilities was set to <25.7 µmol/L, which is the upper normal limit used in our institutions. The appearance of the major duodenal papilla can be classified into the following four types based on the classification proposed by Haraldsson et al.: regular (type 1), small (type 2) (i.e., diameter <3 mm), protruding or pendulous (type 3), and creased or ridged (type 4) [18]. Acute cholangitis was diagnosed according to the revised Tokyo Guidelines (2018) [19], and patients who satisfied the definitive diagnostic criteria were included in this study. A low-volume center was defined as an institution that performed <250 ERCP procedures annually. Among the three participating institutions included in this study, two were low-volume centers, and one was a high-volume center with >1,000 performed ERCP.
Method of biliary cannulation
After reaching the major duodenal papilla using a sideviewing duodenoscope (JF-260 or TJF-260; Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) under appropriate sedation, the major duodenal papilla type and presence of periampullary diverticulum were determined. In this study, guidewire- or contrast-assisted cannulation using a wire-loaded type injection catheter (MTW Endoskopie, Wesel, Germany) and a 0.025-inch guidewire (VisiGlide2; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan/Jagwire; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) was the first choice for primary biliary cannulation. For difficult biliary cannulations, rescue cannulation techniques, such as pancreatic guidewire-assisted biliary cannulation and/or precut sphincterotomy, were performed based on the surgeon’s discretion.
Among the 38 different endoscopists included in this study, 18 were non-expert endoscopists who had performed <200 ERCP procedures. When a non-expert endoscopist performed the ERCP procedure, an experienced endoscopist who had performed >500 ERCP procedures assisted to ensure procedural safety. The standard duration for takeover by an experienced endoscopist after attempting initial biliary cannulation in difficult cases at our institution was 10 min.
Statistical analysis
One-to-one propensity score matching with a caliper of 0.2 was performed to examine the association between difficult biliary cannulation and the incidence of PEP. Univariate analysis using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test for categorical data and Welch’s t-test for continuous data were performed to identify potential factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation. Significant factors (p<0.10) from univariate analyses were subjected to multivariate logistic regression analysis.
All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (version 1.53; Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R (version 4.1.0; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [20], with two-sided p-values <0.05 indicating statistical significance.
Baseline characteristics
Among the 1,406 patients, there were 738 (52.5%) men and 668 (47.5%) women, with a mean age of 74.9 years. Indications for ERCP included acute cholangitis (925 patients, 65.8%), obstructive jaundice without cholangitis (298 patients, 21.2%), and asymptomatic CBDS (183 patients, 13.0%). A total of 574 patients (40.8%) had non-dilated common bile duct (<10 mm). The incidence rate of intradiverticular papilla was 4.3% (60/1,406). Types 1, 2, 3, and 4 major duodenal papillae occurred in 623 (44.3%), 618 (44.0%), 100 (7.1%), and 65 (4.6%) patients, respectively. A total of 220 patients (15.7%) underwent ERCP by non-expert endoscopists, whereas 310 patients (22.1%) underwent ERCP in a low-volume center. The current study obtained a final successful cannulation rate of 98.9% (1,391/1,406).
The baseline characteristics associated with PEP development for all patients and the propensity score-matched patients with and without difficult biliary cannulation are detailed in Table 1. The baseline characteristics were well-balanced among the propensity score-matched patients.
Association between difficult biliary cannulation and PEP incidence
The rates of PEP in all patients and propensity score–matched patients with and without difficult biliary cannulation are detailed in Table 2. Difficult biliary cannulation was a significant factor associated with the development of PEP after one-to-one propensity score-matching adjustment for confounding factors.
Factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation
The results of the univariate analysis for factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation are detailed in Table 3. Accordingly, absence of acute cholangitis, normal serum bilirubin, intradiverticular papilla, types of major duodenal papilla, ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists, and low-volume center were identified as significant factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation.
The multivariate analysis results of the potential factors predicting difficult cannulation are outlined in Table 4. Accordingly, ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–3.5; p<0.001), low-volume center (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2–2.1; p<0.001), intradiverticular papilla (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1–1.5; p=0.007), normal serum bilirubin (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.01–1.7; p=0.038), and absence of acute cholangitis (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.00–1.7; p=0.049) were identified as significant factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation.
Successful biliary cannulation after rescue cannulation
Among patients who underwent rescue cannulation within 5 and 5–10 min after initial cannulation, 33/45 (73.3%) and 56/71 (78.9%) achieved successful biliary cannulation within 5 min after the rescue technique, respectively.
All patients who underwent rescue cannulation within 5 min after the initial cannulation underwent pancreatic guidewire-assisted cannulation. In addition, 65 (91.5%) and 6 (8.5%) of the 71 patients who underwent rescue cannulation within 5–10 min after initial cannulation underwent pancreatic guidewire-assisted cannulation and precut sphincterotomy, respectively.
This study aimed to identify factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation for CBDS. Our results revealed that ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists, low-volume centers, intradiverticular papilla, normal serum bilirubin, and absence of acute cholangitis were significant factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation for CBDS.
Successful biliary cannulation is considered the first step in successful ERCP. Furthermore, difficult biliary cannulation has been identified as an important risk factor for the incidence of PEP [2,3], the most common and serious post-ERCP complication. In this study, difficult biliary cannulation was associated with the development of PEP after adjusting for confounding factors. Therefore, identifying factors that predict difficult biliary cannulation during ERCP may help reduce the incidence of PEP in patients with CBDS. Although previous reports have revealed that malignant biliary strictures are a risk factor for difficult cannulation [21,22], only a few studies have focused on factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation in patients with CBDS.
The ESGE guideline for papillary cannulation states that surgical experience and patient factors influence the likelihood of successful biliary cannulation [12]. This present study found that normal serum bilirubin and absence of acute cholangitis were significant factors predicting difficult cannulation. Difficult biliary cannulation in patients with normal serum bilirubin or without acute cholangitis might be attributed to a tighter sphincter of Oddi, thereby reducing the lower bile duct pressure, than that in patients with elevated serum bilirubin or with acute cholangitis.
Asymptomatic CBDS is representative of normal serum bilirubin levels and the absence of acute cholangitis. Recently, several studies have revealed that asymptomatic CBDS was a risk factor for the incidence of PEP [13,14,23-27]. The results obtained in the present study may explain why asymptomatic CBDS was associated with a high PEP risk. As such, experienced endoscopists may promote better outcomes in patients with asymptomatic CBDS.
Balance should be maintained between training non-expert endoscopists and ensuring the safety and success of initial biliary cannulation. If a non-expert endoscopist experiences any difficulty in biliary cannulation, an experienced endoscopist should be available to ensure the success of secondary ERCP with minimal additional time for biliary cannulation. A prospective study revealed that non-expert endoscopist involvement did not impair biliary cannulation success or prolong subsequent attempts by an experienced endoscopist after an initial unsuccessful cannulation under the training protocol, which allowed non-expert endoscopists to perform 6 min of supervised biliary cannulation attempts after reaching the major duodenal papilla. After an experienced endoscopist took over following the allotted 6 min, an average of 3 min was required for successful biliary cannulation [28]. Given that cannulations exceeding 10 min have been reported to be a risk factor for PEP [10], the definition of difficult cannulation (i.e., cannulation exceeding 5 min) proposed by the ESGE guideline may be useful for determining the optimal timing at which an experienced endoscopist should take over.
In cases of difficult biliary cannulation, rescue techniques, such as pancreatic guidewire-assisted cannulation or precut sphincterotomy are suitable in achieving biliary cannulation [29]. Reports have shown that rescue techniques are useful for patients with periampullary diverticulum [12]. In the current study, approximately three-fourths of the patients who underwent rescue techniques, including pancreatic guidewire-assisted cannulation and precut sphincterotomy within 5–10 min after initial cannulation, achieved successful selective cannulation within 5 min following the rescue technique. As such, the definition of difficult cannulation proposed by the ESGE guideline may be useful for determining the optimal timing in attempting a rescue technique [30].
Difficult biliary cannulation is an important risk factor for PEP. Patients with factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation should receive aggressive prophylaxis, including the use of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [2,3].
This study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective study. Second, some residual confounding factors, such as the orientation of the major duodenal papilla, may have been present.
In conclusion, the current study revealed that ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists, a low-volume center, intradiverticular papilla, normal serum bilirubin, and absence of acute cholangitis were significant factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation for CBDS. When performing ERCP among patients who exhibit the aforementioned predictive factors, initial cannulation attempts by an experienced endoscopist, early utilization of rescue techniques (e.g., pancreatic guidewire-assisted cannulation and precut sphincterotomy), and early takeover by an experienced endoscopist should be considered.
We would like to thank the staff at the participating institutions who are involved in ERCP.
Table 1.
Baseline Characteristics
All patients
Propensity score-matched patients
With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value With difficult cannulation (n=221) Without difficult cannulation (n=221) p-value
Age (mean, [SD]) (years) 75.2 (13.8) 74.6 (14.0) 0.39 74.1 (14.3) 74.5 (14.8) 0.82
Age less than 60 years (5%) 89 (14.8) 124 (15.4) 0.82 40 (18.1) 40 (18.1) 1.0
Female gender (%) 297 (49.5) 371 (46.0) 0.21 113 (51.1) 103 (46.6) 0.39
Billroth-I reconstruction (%) 21 (3.5) 19 (2.4) 0.26 9 (4.1) 8 (3.6) 1.0
Performance status 3 or 4 (%) 105 (17.5) 152 (18.9) 0.53 39 (17.6) 37 (16.7) 0.90
End-stage renal failure requiring dialysis (%) 20 (3.3) 22 (2.7) 0.53 10 (4.5) 5 (2.3) 0.29
Normal serum bilirubin (%) 299 (49.8) 331 (41.1) 0.001 104 (47.1) 97 (43.9) 0.57
Nondilated CBD (<10 mm) (%) 243 (40.5) 331 (41.1) 0.87 85 (38.5) 88 (39.8) 0.85
Large CBD stones (>10 mm) (%) 106 (17.7) 148 (18.4) 0.78 40 (18.1) 42 (19.0) 0.90
Multiple CBD stones (≥2 stones) (%) 232 (38.7) 345 (42.8) 0.13 91 (41.2) 84 (38.0) 0.56
Intradiverticular papilla (%) 35 (5.8) 25 (3.1) 0.016 12 (5.4) 14 (6.3) 0.84
ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists 141 (23.5) 79 (9.8) <0.001 44 (19.9) 51 (23.1) 0.49
Contrast-assisted cannulation (%) 274 (45.7) 731 (90.7) <0.001 176 (79.6) 176 (79.6) 1.0
PGW-assisted cannulation (%) 182 (30.3) 4 (0.5) <0.001 9 (4.1) 4 (1.8) 0.26
Wire-guided cannulation (%) 69 (11.5) 71 (8.8) 0.11 31 (14.0) 41 (18.6) 0.25
Pancreatic injection (%) 428 (71.3) 199 (24.7) <0.001 107 (48.4) 110 (49.8) 0.85
EST (%) 512 (85.3) 714 (88.6) 0.076 194 (87.8) 191 (86.4) 0.78
EPBD (%) 74 (12.3) 89 (11.0) 0.50 25 (11.3) 29 (13.1) 0.66
EPLBD (%) 79 (13.2) 134 (16.6) 0.084 38 (17.2) 37 (16.7) 1.0
Precut sphincterotomy (%) 75 (12.5) 0 (0.0) <0.001 5 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0.061
Attempted stone removal (%) 560 (93.3) 785 (97.4) <0.001 211 (95.5) 209 (94.6) 0.83
Balloon (%) 474 (79.0) 650 (80.6) 0.46 179 (81.0) 182 (82.4) 0.81
Basket (%) 255 (42.5) 384 (47.6) 0.058 98 (44.3) 99 (44.8) 1.0
Mechanical lithotripsy (%) 110 (18.3) 112 (13.9) 0.027 42 (19.0) 44 (19.9) 0.90
Biliary stent placement (%) 513 (85.5) 686 (85.1) 0.88 194 (87.8) 188 (85.1) 0.49
Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (%) 153 (25.5) 38 (4.7) <0.001 24 (10.9) 23 (10.4) 1.0
Complete stone removal (%) 555 (92.5) 783 (97.1) <0.001 210 (95.0) 208 (94.1) 0.83
Rectal NSAIDs (%) 57 (9.5) 71 (8.8) 0.71 23 (10.4) 26 (11.8) 0.76
Protease inhibitor (%) 247 (41.2) 235 (29.2) <0.001 104 (47.1) 87 (39.4) 0.12
Prolonged procedure time (>30min) (%) 321 (53.5) 76 (9.4) <0.001 63 (28.5) 61 (27.6) 0.92
Procedure time (mean, [SD]) (min) 36.6 (16.5) 19.5 (9.4) <0.001 27.6 (9.4) 27.0 (12.4) 0.63

CBD, common bile duct; EPBD, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation; EPLBD, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; PGW, pancreatic guidewire; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2.
Rate of post-ERCP Pancreatitis
All patients
Propensity score-matched patients
With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value With difficult cannulation (n=221) Without difficult cannulation (n=221) p-value
PEP (%) 50 (8.3%) 13 (1.6%) <0.001 12 (5.4%) 3 (1.4%) 0.032

ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Table 3.
Univariate Analysis for Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation
With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value
Age (mean, [SD]) (years) 75.2 (13.8) 74.6 (14.0) 0.39
Female gender (%) 297 (49.5) 371 (46.0) 0.21
Absence of acute cholangitis (%) 238 (39.7) 243 (30.1) <0.001
Normal serum bilirubin (%) 299 (49.8) 331 (41.1) 0.001
Nondilated CBD (<10 mm) (%) 243 (40.5) 331 (41.1) 0.87
Performance status 3 or 4 (%) 105 (17.5) 152 (18.9) 0.53
Billroth-1 reconstruction (%) 21 (3.5) 19 (2.4) 0.26
Intradiverticular papilla (%) 35 (5.8) 25 (3.1) 0.016
Appearance of the major duodenal papilla (%) 0.002
 Type 1 265 (44.2) 358 (44.4)
 Type 2 276 (46.0) 342 (42.4)
 Type 3 26 (4.3) 74 (9.2)
 Type 4 33 (5.5) 32 (4.0)
ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists 141 (23.5) 79 (9.8) <0.001
Low-volume center (%) 170 (28.3) 140 (17.4) <0.001
Multiple CBD stones (≥2 stones) (%) 232 (38.7) 345 (42.8) 0.13
Large CBD stones (>10 mm) (%) 106 (17.7) 148 (18.4) 0.78
History of cholecystectomy (%) 59 (9.8) 97 (12.0) 0.20
Presence of gallstones (%) 386 (64.3) 495 (61.4) 0.27

CBD, common bile duct; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; SD, standard deviation.

Table 4.
Multivariate Analysis for Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation
Odds ratio 95% CI p-value
ERCP performed by nonexpert endoscopists 2.5 1.9-3.5 <0.001
Low-volume center 1.6 1.2-2.1 <0.001
Intradiverticular papilla 1.3 1.1-1.5 0.007
Normal serum bilirubin 1.3 1.01-1.7 0.038
Absence of acute cholangitis 1.3 1.00-1.7 0.049
Appearance of the major duodenal papilla 0.98 0.85-1.1 0.77

CI, confidence interval; ERCP, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

  • 1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:32–47.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCP-related adverse events: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2020;52:127–149.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Mine T, Morizane T, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol 2017;52:1013–1022.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Haraldsson E, Kylänpää L, Grönroos J, et al. Macroscopic appearance of the major duodenal papilla influences bile duct cannulation: a prospective multicenter study by the scandinavian association for digestive endoscopy study group for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:957–963.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Berry R, Han JY, Tabibian JH. Difficult biliary cannulation: historical perspective, practical updates, and guide for the endoscopist. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019;11:5–21.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 6. Yue P, Zhu KX, Wang HP, et al. Clinical significance of different periampullary diverticulum classifications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cannulation. World J Gastroenterol 2020;26:2403–2415.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Keswani RN, Qumseya BJ, O’Dwyer LC, Wani S. Association between endoscopist and center endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volume with procedure success and adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1866–1875.e3.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Williams EJ, Ogollah R, Thomas P, et al. What predicts failed cannulation and therapy at ERCP? Results of a large-scale multicenter analysis. Endoscopy 2012;44:674–683.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Peng C, Nietert PJ, Cotton PB, Lackland DT, Romagnuolo J. Predicting native papilla biliary cannulation success using a multinational endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Quality Network. BMC Gastroenterol 2013;13:147.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 10. Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:31–40.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Halttunen J, Meisner S, Aabakken L, et al. Difficult cannulation as defined by a prospective study of the scandinavian association for digestive endoscopy (SADE) in 907 ERCPs. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014;49:752–758.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L, et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2016;48:657–683.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Saito H, Koga T, Sakaguchi M, et al. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;34:1153–1159.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Saito H, Sakaguchi M, Kadono Y, et al. Disease-based risk stratification of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis for common bile duct stones. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:305–314.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Balik E, Eren T, Keskin M, et al. Parameters that may be used for predicting failure during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Oncol 2013;2013:201681.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 16. Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS, Affronti J, Browning CL, Bute BP. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996;125:983–989.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. ASGE Training Committee, Jorgensen J, Kubiliun N, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:279–289.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Haraldsson E, Lundell L, Swahn F, et al. Endoscopic classification of the papilla of Vater. Results of an inter- and intraobserver agreement study. United European Gastroenterol J 2017;5:504–510.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 19. Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2018;25:17–30.PubMed
  • 20. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48:452–458.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 21. Fukatsu H, Kawamoto H, Kato H, et al. Evaluation of needle-knife precut papillotomy after unsuccessful biliary cannulation, especially with regard to postoperative anatomic factors. Surg Endosc 2008;22:717–723.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Chen PH, Tung CF, Peng YC, Yeh HZ, Chang CS, Chen CC. Duodenal major papilla morphology can affect biliary cannulation and complications during ERCP, an observational study. BMC Gastroenterol 2020;20:310.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 23. Kim SB, Kim KH, Kim TN. Comparison of outcomes and complications of endoscopic common bile duct stone removal between asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. Dig Dis Sci 2016;61:1172–1177.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Saito H, Kakuma T, Kadono Y, et al. Increased risk and severity of ERCP-related complications associated with asymptomatic common bile duct stones. Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E809–E817.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 25. Xu XD, Qian JQ, Dai JJ, Sun ZX. Endoscopic treatment for choledocholithiasis in asymptomatic patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:165–169.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Xiao L, Geng C, Li X, Li Y, Wang C. Comparable safety of ERCP in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with common bile duct stones: a propensity-matched analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2021;56:111–117.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic bile duct stones and association of endoscopic treatment with clinical outcomes. J Gastroenterol 2020;55:78–85.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Frost JW, Kurup A, Shetty S, Fisher N. Does the presence of a trainee compromise success of biliary cannulation at ERCP? Endosc Int Open 2017;5:E559–E562.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 29. Lee TH, Park SH. Optimal use of wire-assisted techniques and precut sphincterotomy. Clin Endosc 2016;49:467–474.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 30. Lee YS, Cho CM, Cho KB, et al. Difficult biliary cannulation from the perspective of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis: identifying the optimal timing for the rescue cannulation technique. Gut Liver 2021;15:459–465.ArticlePubMedPMC

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Advancements in Research on Challenges in Selective Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
      天雨 张
      Journal of Clinical Personalized Medicine.2024; 03(01): 100.     CrossRef
    • The impact of transpancreatic precut sphincterotomy on the quality of ERCP in a low-volume setting
      Wei-Chih Su, Chia-Chi Wang, Tsung-Hsien Hsiao, Hung-Da Chen, Jiann-Hwa Chen
      Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2024; 99(5): 747.     CrossRef
    • Morphology of the papilla can predict procedural safety and efficacy of ERCP—a systematic review and meta-analysis
      Edina Tari, Endre Botond Gagyi, Anett Rancz, Dániel Sándor Veres, Szilárd Váncsa, Péter Jenő Hegyi, Krisztina Hagymási, Péter Hegyi, Bálint Erőss
      Scientific Reports.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea
      Hyung Ku Chon, Ki-Hyun Kim, Tae Jun Song, Dong-Won Ahn, Eaum Seok Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Yoon Suk Lee, Tae Joo Jeon, Chang Hwan Park, Kwang Bum Cho, Dong Wook Lee, Jin-Seok Park, Seung Bae Yoon, Kwang Hyun Chung, Jin Lee, Miyoung Choi
      Gut and Liver.2024; 18(4): 564.     CrossRef
    • Development of a Scoring System for Predicting the Difficulty of Bile Duct Cannulation and Selecting the Appropriate Cannulation Method
      Taira Kuroda, Hideki Miyata, Kozue Kanemitsu-Okada, Emi Yanagihara, Hironobu Saneto, Taisei Murakami, Hirofumi Izumoto, Kei Onishi, Shogo Kitahata, Tomoe Kawamura, Ryuichiro Iwasaki, Fujimasa Tada, Eiji Tsubouchi, Atsushi Hiraoka, Tomoyuki Ninomiya
      Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea
      Ki-Hyun Kim, Hyung Ku Chon, Tae Jun Song, Dong Won Ahn, Eaum Seok Lee, Yun Nah Lee, Yoon Suk Lee, Tae Joo Jeon, Chang Hwan Park, Kwang Bum Cho, Dong Wook Lee, Jin-Seok Park, Seung Bae Yoon, Kwang Hyung Chung, Jin Lee, Miyoung Choi
      The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2024; 84(3): 111.     CrossRef
    • En face position of the major duodenal papilla using a reopenable clip during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
      Hirokazu Saito, Akiko Ikebata, Shunpei Hashigo
      Digestive Endoscopy.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Criterios 5-5-2 de canulación biliar y complicaciones post colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica: Experiencia en un hospital de referencia, Perú
      Wilmer Gustavo Quiroga Purizaca, Diego Ricardo Páucar Aguilar, Jackeline Amparo Barrientos Pérez, Isamar Benyi Gutiérrez Córdova, Renato Garrido Acedo, Daniel Andrei Vargas Blácido
      Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú.2023; 43(2): e1461.     CrossRef
    • Predictive factors of difficult biliary cannulation: An experience of a tunisian tertiary center
      K. Ben Abdallah, L. Hamzaoui, M. Mahmoudi, I. Cherif, A. Ben Mohamed, M. Yakoubi, A. Khsiba, M. Medhioub, M.M. Azouz
      Heliyon.2022; 8(12): e12526.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones
      Clin Endosc. 2022;55(2):263-269.   Published online November 12, 2021
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Related articles
    Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones
    Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation during Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Common Bile Duct Stones
    All patients
    Propensity score-matched patients
    With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value With difficult cannulation (n=221) Without difficult cannulation (n=221) p-value
    Age (mean, [SD]) (years) 75.2 (13.8) 74.6 (14.0) 0.39 74.1 (14.3) 74.5 (14.8) 0.82
    Age less than 60 years (5%) 89 (14.8) 124 (15.4) 0.82 40 (18.1) 40 (18.1) 1.0
    Female gender (%) 297 (49.5) 371 (46.0) 0.21 113 (51.1) 103 (46.6) 0.39
    Billroth-I reconstruction (%) 21 (3.5) 19 (2.4) 0.26 9 (4.1) 8 (3.6) 1.0
    Performance status 3 or 4 (%) 105 (17.5) 152 (18.9) 0.53 39 (17.6) 37 (16.7) 0.90
    End-stage renal failure requiring dialysis (%) 20 (3.3) 22 (2.7) 0.53 10 (4.5) 5 (2.3) 0.29
    Normal serum bilirubin (%) 299 (49.8) 331 (41.1) 0.001 104 (47.1) 97 (43.9) 0.57
    Nondilated CBD (<10 mm) (%) 243 (40.5) 331 (41.1) 0.87 85 (38.5) 88 (39.8) 0.85
    Large CBD stones (>10 mm) (%) 106 (17.7) 148 (18.4) 0.78 40 (18.1) 42 (19.0) 0.90
    Multiple CBD stones (≥2 stones) (%) 232 (38.7) 345 (42.8) 0.13 91 (41.2) 84 (38.0) 0.56
    Intradiverticular papilla (%) 35 (5.8) 25 (3.1) 0.016 12 (5.4) 14 (6.3) 0.84
    ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists 141 (23.5) 79 (9.8) <0.001 44 (19.9) 51 (23.1) 0.49
    Contrast-assisted cannulation (%) 274 (45.7) 731 (90.7) <0.001 176 (79.6) 176 (79.6) 1.0
    PGW-assisted cannulation (%) 182 (30.3) 4 (0.5) <0.001 9 (4.1) 4 (1.8) 0.26
    Wire-guided cannulation (%) 69 (11.5) 71 (8.8) 0.11 31 (14.0) 41 (18.6) 0.25
    Pancreatic injection (%) 428 (71.3) 199 (24.7) <0.001 107 (48.4) 110 (49.8) 0.85
    EST (%) 512 (85.3) 714 (88.6) 0.076 194 (87.8) 191 (86.4) 0.78
    EPBD (%) 74 (12.3) 89 (11.0) 0.50 25 (11.3) 29 (13.1) 0.66
    EPLBD (%) 79 (13.2) 134 (16.6) 0.084 38 (17.2) 37 (16.7) 1.0
    Precut sphincterotomy (%) 75 (12.5) 0 (0.0) <0.001 5 (2.3) 0 (0.0) 0.061
    Attempted stone removal (%) 560 (93.3) 785 (97.4) <0.001 211 (95.5) 209 (94.6) 0.83
    Balloon (%) 474 (79.0) 650 (80.6) 0.46 179 (81.0) 182 (82.4) 0.81
    Basket (%) 255 (42.5) 384 (47.6) 0.058 98 (44.3) 99 (44.8) 1.0
    Mechanical lithotripsy (%) 110 (18.3) 112 (13.9) 0.027 42 (19.0) 44 (19.9) 0.90
    Biliary stent placement (%) 513 (85.5) 686 (85.1) 0.88 194 (87.8) 188 (85.1) 0.49
    Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (%) 153 (25.5) 38 (4.7) <0.001 24 (10.9) 23 (10.4) 1.0
    Complete stone removal (%) 555 (92.5) 783 (97.1) <0.001 210 (95.0) 208 (94.1) 0.83
    Rectal NSAIDs (%) 57 (9.5) 71 (8.8) 0.71 23 (10.4) 26 (11.8) 0.76
    Protease inhibitor (%) 247 (41.2) 235 (29.2) <0.001 104 (47.1) 87 (39.4) 0.12
    Prolonged procedure time (>30min) (%) 321 (53.5) 76 (9.4) <0.001 63 (28.5) 61 (27.6) 0.92
    Procedure time (mean, [SD]) (min) 36.6 (16.5) 19.5 (9.4) <0.001 27.6 (9.4) 27.0 (12.4) 0.63
    All patients
    Propensity score-matched patients
    With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value With difficult cannulation (n=221) Without difficult cannulation (n=221) p-value
    PEP (%) 50 (8.3%) 13 (1.6%) <0.001 12 (5.4%) 3 (1.4%) 0.032
    With difficult cannulation (n=600) Without difficult cannulation (n=806) p-value
    Age (mean, [SD]) (years) 75.2 (13.8) 74.6 (14.0) 0.39
    Female gender (%) 297 (49.5) 371 (46.0) 0.21
    Absence of acute cholangitis (%) 238 (39.7) 243 (30.1) <0.001
    Normal serum bilirubin (%) 299 (49.8) 331 (41.1) 0.001
    Nondilated CBD (<10 mm) (%) 243 (40.5) 331 (41.1) 0.87
    Performance status 3 or 4 (%) 105 (17.5) 152 (18.9) 0.53
    Billroth-1 reconstruction (%) 21 (3.5) 19 (2.4) 0.26
    Intradiverticular papilla (%) 35 (5.8) 25 (3.1) 0.016
    Appearance of the major duodenal papilla (%) 0.002
     Type 1 265 (44.2) 358 (44.4)
     Type 2 276 (46.0) 342 (42.4)
     Type 3 26 (4.3) 74 (9.2)
     Type 4 33 (5.5) 32 (4.0)
    ERCP performed by non-expert endoscopists 141 (23.5) 79 (9.8) <0.001
    Low-volume center (%) 170 (28.3) 140 (17.4) <0.001
    Multiple CBD stones (≥2 stones) (%) 232 (38.7) 345 (42.8) 0.13
    Large CBD stones (>10 mm) (%) 106 (17.7) 148 (18.4) 0.78
    History of cholecystectomy (%) 59 (9.8) 97 (12.0) 0.20
    Presence of gallstones (%) 386 (64.3) 495 (61.4) 0.27
    Odds ratio 95% CI p-value
    ERCP performed by nonexpert endoscopists 2.5 1.9-3.5 <0.001
    Low-volume center 1.6 1.2-2.1 <0.001
    Intradiverticular papilla 1.3 1.1-1.5 0.007
    Normal serum bilirubin 1.3 1.01-1.7 0.038
    Absence of acute cholangitis 1.3 1.00-1.7 0.049
    Appearance of the major duodenal papilla 0.98 0.85-1.1 0.77
    Table 1. Baseline Characteristics

    CBD, common bile duct; EPBD, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation; EPLBD, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy; NSAIDs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis; PGW, pancreatic guidewire; SD, standard deviation.

    Table 2. Rate of post-ERCP Pancreatitis

    ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PEP, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

    Table 3. Univariate Analysis for Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation

    CBD, common bile duct; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; SD, standard deviation.

    Table 4. Multivariate Analysis for Factors Predicting Difficult Biliary Cannulation

    CI, confidence interval; ERCP, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.


    Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
    Close layer
    TOP