Advertisement

The importance of early recognition in management of ERCP-related perforations

  • Jason G. Bill
  • Zachary Smith
  • Joseph Brancheck
  • Jeffrey Elsner
  • Paul Hobbs
  • Gabriel D. Lang
  • Dayna S. Early
  • Koushik Das
  • Thomas Hollander
  • Maria B. Majella Doyle
  • Ryan C. Fields
  • William G. Hawkins
  • Steven M. Strasberg
  • Chet Hammill
  • William C. Chapman
  • Steven Edmundowicz
  • Daniel K. Mullady
  • Vladimir M. Kushnir
Article

Abstract

Background

Iatrogenic perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare events, carrying with it a mortality of up to 8%. Given the rarity of this adverse event, there remains limited data and continued uncertainties when choosing therapeutic strategies. Our aims were to evaluate the management of ERCP-related perforations and compare outcomes based on timing of recognition.

Methods

The endoscopic databases of two tertiary care centers were interrogated to identify consecutive adult patients who sustained ERCP-related perforation over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2016. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract demographic data, perforation type, management strategies, clinical data, and patient outcomes.

Results

14,045 ERCP’s were performed during our 10-year study period. Sixty-three patients (average age 62.3 ± 2.38 years, 76% female) with ERCP-related perforations were included. Stapfer I perforations were found in 14 (22.2%) patients, Stapfer II in 24 (38.1%), and Stapfer III and IV perforations were identified in 16 (25.4%) and 9 (14.28%), respectively. Forty-seven (74.6%) perforations were recognized immediately during the ERCP, whereas 16 (25.4%) were recognized late. Endoscopic therapy was attempted in 35 patients in whom perforations were identified immediately, and was technically successful in 33 (94.3%). In all, 4 (1 immediate/ 3 delayed) patients required percutaneous drainage and 9 (5 immediate/ 4 delayed) surgery. Length of hospital stay, ICU admission were significantly shorter and incidence of SIRS was significantly lower when perforation was recognized immediately.

Conclusions

Immediate recognition of ERCP-related perforations leads to more favorable patient outcomes; with lower incidence of SIRS, less need for ICU level care, and shorter hospital stay.

Keywords

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Iatrogenic perforation 

Notes

Author Contributions

JGB concept, design, data analysis, drafting the article; ZS manuscript revision; JB data collection and analysis; JE data analysis and collection; PH data collection, manuscript revision; GDL manuscript revision; DSE manuscript revision; KD manuscript revision; TH study design and data collection; MD manuscript revision; RCF manuscript revision; WGH manuscript revision; SMS manuscript revision; CH manuscript revision; WCC manuscript revision; SE manuscript revision; DKM concept, design, manuscript revision; VMK concept, design, data analysis, and critical revision of the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Maria B. Majella Doyle receives speaking fees from Novartis; Dr William G Hawkins reports other from Accuronix; Dr. Chet Hammil reports personal fees from Medtronics; Dr. William C. Chapman receives personal fees from Novartis, XOR Labs Toronto and Pathfinder; Dr. Steven Edmundowicz receives personal fees from Olympus and Elsevier publications. Also receives personal fees from Check-cap, Motus, Freehold Surgical, Elira, Paion, Orchestra Medical, Medtronic and Spironetics, Dr. Daniel K Mullady receives personal fees from Boston Scientific; Jason G Bill, Zachary Smith, Joseph Brancheck, Jeffrey Elsner, Paul Hobbs, Gabriel D Lang, Dayna S Early, Koushik Das, Thomas Hollander, Ryan C. Fields, Steven M. Strasberg, and Vladimir Kushnir have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Aliperti G (1996) Complications related to diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 6(2):379–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baillie J (1994) Complications of endoscopy. Endoscopy 26(1):185–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cirocchi R, Kelly MD, Griffiths EA, Tabola R, Sartelli M, Carlini L, Ghersi S, Di Saverio S (2017) A systematic review of the management and outcome of ERCP related duodenal perforations using a standardized classification system. Surgeon 15(6):379–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J (2009) Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 70(1):80–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ et al (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Eng J Med 335(13):909–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kodali S, Monkemuller K, Kim H, Ramesh J, Trevino J, Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM (2015) ERCP-related perforations in the new millennium: a large tertiary referral center 10-year experience. United Eur Gastroenterol J 3(1):25–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, De Berardinis F, De Bernardin M, Ederle A, Fina P, Fratton A (1998) Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 48(1):1–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Machado NO (2012) Management of duodenal perforation post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. When and whom to operate and what factors determine the outcome? A review article. JOP 13(1):18–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M, Minoli G, Crosta C, Comin U, Fertitta A et al (2001) Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 96(2):417–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Silviera ML, Seamon MJ, Porshinsky B, Prosciak MP, Doraiswamy VA, Wang CF, Lorenzo M, Truitt M, Biboa J, Jarvis AM et al (2009) Complications related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 18(1):73–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Assalia A, Suissa A, Ilivitzki A, Mahajna A, Yassin K, Hashmonai M, Krausz MM (2007) Validity of clinical criteria in the management of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related duodenal perforations. Arch Surg 142(11):1059–1064CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dubecz A, Ottmann J, Schweigert M, Stadlhuber RJ, Feith M, Wiessner V, Muschweck H, Stein HJ (2012) Management of ERCP-related small bowel perforations: the pivotal role of physical investigation. Can J Surg 55(2):99–104CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jin YJ, Jeong S, Kim JH, Hwang JC, Yoo BM, Moon JH, Park SH, Kim HG, Lee DK, Jeon YS et al (2013) Clinical course and proposed treatment strategy for ERCP-related duodenal perforation: a multicenter analysis. Endoscopy 45(10):806–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kumbhari V, Sinha A, Reddy A, Afghani E, Cotsalas D, Patel YA, Storm AC, Khashab MA, Kalloo AN, Singh VK (2016) Algorithm for the management of ERCP-related perforations. Gastrointest Endosc 83(5):934–943CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA, Sherman S, Madura JA, Fogel E, Swack ML, Kopecky KK (1999) Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery 126(4):658–663 discussion 664–655.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, Katkhouda N, Parekh D, Jabbour N, Garry D (2000) Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 232(2):191–198CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller R, Zbar A, Klein Y, Buyeviz V, Melzer E, Mosenkis BN, Mavor E (2013) Perforations following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a single institution experience and surgical recommendations. Am J Surg 206(2):180–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polydorou A, Vezakis A, Fragulidis G, Katsarelias D, Vagianos C, Polymeneas G (2011) A tailored approach to the management of perforations following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. J Gastrointest Surg 15(12):2211–2217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morgan KA, Fontenot BB, Ruddy JM, Mickey S, Adams DB (2009) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography gut perforations: when to wait! When to operate!. Am Surg 75(6):477–483; discussion 483 – 474PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47(11):1245–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RM, Sibbald WJ (1992) Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest 101(6):1644–1655Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, Johnson CD, Sarr MG, Tsiotos GG, Vege SS (2013) Acute pancreatitis classification working G: classification of acute pancreatitis–2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 62(1):102–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Eendosc 37(3):383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Enns R, Eloubeidi MA, Mergener K, Jowell PS, Branch MS, Pappas TM, Baillie J (2002) ERCP-related perforations: risk factors and management. Endoscopy 34(4):293–298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    La Torre M, Velluti F, Giuliani G, Di Giulio E, Ziparo V, La Torre F (2012) Promptness of diagnosis is the main prognostic factor after colonoscopic perforation. Colorectal Dis 14(1):e23–e26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zenga J, Kreisel D, Kushnir VM, Rich JT (2015) Management of cervical esophageal and hypopharyngeal perforations. Am J Otolaryngol 36(5):678–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D, Williams SJ, Byth K, Bourke MJ (2016) Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut.  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309848 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ma MX, Bourke MJ (2016) Complications of endoscopic polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colon. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 30(5):749–767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swan MP, Bourke MJ, Moss A, Williams SJ, Hopper A, Metz A (2011) The target sign: an endoscopic marker for the resection of the muscularis propria and potential perforation during colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 73(1):79–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baron TH, Song LM, Ross A, Tokar JL, Irani S, Kozarek RA (2012) Use of an over-the-scope clipping device: multicenter retrospective results of the first U.S. experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 76(1):202–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mangiavillano B, Viaggi P, Masci E (2010) Endoscopic closure of acute iatrogenic perforations during diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in the gastrointestinal tract using metallic clips: a literature review. J Dig Dis 11(1):12–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Voermans RP, Le Moine O, von Renteln D, Ponchon T, Giovannini M, Bruno M, Weusten B, Seewald S, Costamagna G, Deprez P et al (2012) Efficacy of endoscopic closure of acute perforations of the gastrointestinal tract. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 10(6):603–608CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Honegger C, Valli PV, Wiegand N, Bauerfeind P, Gubler C (2017) Establishment of over-the-scope-clips (OTSC(R)) in daily endoscopic routine. United Eur Gastroenterol J 5(2):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Verlaan T, Voermans RP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bemelman WA, Fockens P (2015) Endoscopic closure of acute perforations of the GI tract: a systematic review of the literature. Gastrointest Endosc 82(4):618–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tringali A, Cintolo M, Hassan C, Adler DG, Mutignani M (2017) Type II-III ERCP-related perforations treated with temporary Fully covered self-expandable stents. Dig Liver Dis 49:1169–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason G. Bill
    • 1
  • Zachary Smith
    • 1
    • 4
  • Joseph Brancheck
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Elsner
    • 1
  • Paul Hobbs
    • 1
  • Gabriel D. Lang
    • 1
  • Dayna S. Early
    • 1
  • Koushik Das
    • 1
  • Thomas Hollander
    • 1
  • Maria B. Majella Doyle
    • 2
  • Ryan C. Fields
    • 2
  • William G. Hawkins
    • 2
  • Steven M. Strasberg
    • 2
  • Chet Hammill
    • 2
  • William C. Chapman
    • 2
  • Steven Edmundowicz
    • 3
  • Daniel K. Mullady
    • 1
  • Vladimir M. Kushnir
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of GastroenterologyWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Division of GastroenterologyUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  4. 4.Division of Gastroenterology and Liver DiseaseCase Western Reserve University School of MedicineClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations