Sequential algorithm analysis to facilitate selective biliary access for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP: a prospective clinical study

被引：27

作者：

Lee, Tae Hoon ^{[1
]}

Hwang, Soon Oh ^{[1
]}

Choi, Hyun Jong ^{[2
]}

Jung, Yunho ^{[1
]}

Cha, Sang Woo ^{[3
]}

Chung, Il-Kwun ^{[1
]}

Moon, Jong Ho ^{[2
]}

Cho, Young Deok ^{[3
]}

Park, Sang-Heum ^{[1
]}

Kim, Sun-Joo ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Soonchunhyang Univ, Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Gastroenterol,Cheonan Hosp, Cheonan, South Korea

[2] Soonchunhyang Univ, Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Gastroenterol,Bucheon Hosp, Puchon, South Korea

[3] Soonchunhyang Univ, Sch Med, Dept Internal Med, Div Gastroenterol,Seoul Hosp, Seoul, South Korea

来源：

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY | 2014年 / 14卷

关键词：

Difficult biliary cannulation; Precut; Double guidewire cannulation; Pancreatic stent; BILE-DUCT CANNULATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; DOUBLE-GUIDEWIRE TECHNIQUE; KNIFE PRECUT PAPILLOTOMY; ODDI DYSFUNCTION; WIRE PLACEMENT; RISK-FACTORS; PANCREATITIS; SPHINCTEROTOMY; METAANALYSIS;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-230X-14-30

中图分类号：

R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Numerous clinical trials to improve the success rate of biliary access in difficult biliary cannulation (DBC) during ERCP have been reported. However, standard guidelines or sequential protocol analysis according to different methods are limited in place. We planned to investigate a sequential protocol to facilitate selective biliary access for DBC during ERCP. Methods: This prospective clinical study enrolled 711 patients with naive papillae at a tertiary referral center. If wire-guided cannulation was deemed to have failed due to the DBC criteria, then according to the cannulation algorithm early precut fistulotomy (EPF; cannulation time > 5 min, papillary contacts > 5 times, or hook-nose-shaped papilla), double-guidewire cannulation (DGC; unintentional pancreatic duct cannulation >= 3 times), and precut after placement of a pancreatic stent (PPS; if DGC was difficult or failed) were performed sequentially. The main outcome measurements were the technical success, procedure outcomes, and complications. Results: Initially, a total of 140 (19.7%) patients with DBC underwent EPF (n = 71) and DGC (n = 69). Then, in DGC group 36 patients switched to PPS due to difficulty criteria. The successful biliary cannulation rate was 97.1% (136/140; 94.4% [67/71] with EPF, 47.8% [33/69] with DGC, and 100% [36/36] with PPS; P < 0.001). The mean successful cannulation time (standard deviation) was 559.4 (412.8) seconds in EPF, 314.8 (65.2) seconds in DGC, and 706.0 (469.4) seconds in PPS (P < 0.05). The DGC group had a relatively low successful cannulation rate (47.8%) but had a shorter cannulation time compared to the other groups due to early switching to the PPS method in difficult or failed DGC. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 14 (10%) patients (9 mild, 1 moderate), which did not differ significantly among the groups (P = 0.870) or compared with the conventional group (P = 0.125). Conclusions: Based on the sequential protocol analysis, EPF, DGC, and PPS may be safe and feasible for DBC. The use of EPF in selected DBC criteria, DGC in unintentional pancreatic duct cannulations, and PPS in failed or difficult DGC may facilitate successful biliary cannulation.

引用

页数：8