Analysis of Risk Factors in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Immediate and Delayed Hemorrhage



Hemorrhage is a serious complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there is a lack of comparative studies on immediate and delayed hemorrhage. The present study aims to explore the relevant risk factors of immediate and delayed hemorrhage of ERCP and compare the similarities and differences.


ERCP cases conducted by our hospital between January 2017 and January 2020 were selected for retrospective analysis. Then age, gender, basic disease, laboratory examinations, and other relevant clinical information were collected for the analysis.


A total of 1009 ERCP cases were included in the present study. Among these cases, 76 patients were in the immediate hemorrhage group, 28 patients were in the delayed hemorrhage group, and 905 patients were in the non-hemorrhage group. The univariate analysis revealed that choledocholithiasis, pre-cut, and endoscopic papillary sphincterotomy (EST) were risk factors for immediate hemorrhage, while cholangitis, jaundice, coronary heart disease, pre-cut, high postoperative lipase at four hours and amylase at 24 h, high postoperative leukocyte, urea, bilirubin, low postoperative platelet counts and fibrinogen, and prolonged prothrombin time (PT) and thrombin time (TT) were risk factors for delayed hemorrhage. The logistic regression analysis revealed that EST, pre-cut, and activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) were independent risk factors for immediate hemorrhage, while high amylase at 24 h after ERCP, high postoperative urea, prolonged TT, and coronary heart disease were independent risk factors for delayed hemorrhage.


Pre-cut was a common risk factor for immediate and delayed hemorrhage, while other risk factors were different.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Data availability

The data were collected by checking medical records in the medical management system of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University. The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Ukkonen M, Siiki A, Antila A, et al. Safety and efficacy of acute endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the elderly. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:3302–3308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lu Y, Chen L, Jin Z, Bie LK, Gong B. Is ERCP both effective and safe for common bile duct stones removal in octogenarians? A comparative study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28:647–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Salminen P, Lainn S, Gullichsen R. Severe and fatal complications after ERCP: analysis of 2555 procedures in a single experienced center. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:1965–1970

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Afridi F, Rotundo L, Feurdean M, Ahlawat S. Trends in post-therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography gastrointestinal hemorrhage, perforation and mortality from 2000 to 2012: a nationwide study. Digestion. 2019;2018:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Talukdar R. Complications of ERCP. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30:793–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Kahaleh M, Freeman M. Prevention and management of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications. Clin Endosc. 2012;45:305–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ferreira LEVVC, Baron TH. Post-sphincterotomy bleeding: who, what, when, and how. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:2850–2858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Dumonceau JM, Kapral C, Aabakken L, et al. ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2020;52:127–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:446–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Katsinelos P, Lazaraki G, Chatzimavroudis G, et al. Risk factors for therapeutic ERCP-related complications: an analysis of 2715 cases performed by a single endoscopist. Ann Gastroenterol. 2014;27:65–72

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jayaraj M, Mohan BP, Dhindsa BS, et al. Periampullary diverticula and ERCP outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64:1364–1376.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Szary NM, Al-Kawas FH. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: how to avoid and manage them. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2013;9:496–504

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mallery JS, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, et al. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:633–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Tsai MC, Wang CC, Wang YT, et al. Major bleeding risk of endoscopic sphincterotomy versus endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation in hemodialysis patients. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2019;25:106–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kim SB, Kim KH, Kim TN. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for choledocholithiasis in long-term dialysis: a propensity score analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:3141–3146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Inamdar S, Berzin TM, Berkowitz J, et al. Decompensated cirrhosis may be a risk factor for adverse events in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Liver Int. 2016;36:1457–1463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mashiana HS, Dhaliwal AS, Sayles H, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cirrhosis—a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on adverse events. World J Gastro Endosc. 2018;10:354–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Leal C, Prado V, Colan J, et al. Adverse events and acute chronic liver failure in patients with cirrhosis undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a multicenter matched-cohort Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Navaneethan U, Njei B, Zhu X, et al. Safety of ERCP in patients with liver cirrhosis: a national database study. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E303–E314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Adler DG, Haseeb A, Francis G, et al. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic ERCP in patients with cirrhosis: a large multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:353–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ambrus RB, Svendsen LB, Hillingso JG, Hansen ML, Achiam MP. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography complications in liver transplanted patients, a single-center experience. Scand J Surg. 2015;104:86–91

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Balderramo D, Bordas JM, Sendino O, et al. Complications after ERCP in liver transplant recipients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:285–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Husing A, Cicinnati VR, Maschmeier M, et al. Complications after endoscopic sphincterotomy in liver transplant recipients: a retrospective single-centre study. Arab J Gastroenterol. 2015;16:46–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sanna C, Saracco GM, Reggio D, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation: outcomes and complications. Transplant Proc. 2009;41:1319–1321

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaloy JT, et al. Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Brit J Surg. 2013;100:373–380

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hung TH, Tseng CW, Chen YC, et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation decreases the risk of bleeding in cirrhotic patients compared with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a national population-based study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e16529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Navaneethan U, Konjeti R, Lourdusamy V, et al. Precut sphincterotomy: efficacy for ductal access and the risk of adverse events. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:924–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Kim JH, Yang MJ, Hwang JC, Yoo BM. Usefulness of 4-h post-ERCP serum amylase and lipase levels for prediction of post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroen Hepatol. 2015;30:241–241

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Minakari M, Sebghatollahi V, Sattari M, Fahami E. Serum amylase and lipase levels for prediction of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. J Res Med Sci. 2018;23:54

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors declare no funding resource in this study.

Author information




XLY, YZ, XYW, and TD were responsible for the preparation and design of the experiment, XLY and YZ were responsible for the collection of data, XYW, XLY, and YZ analyzed the data, TD and XLY jointly completed the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tao Deng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ye, X., Zhang, Y., Wan, X. et al. Analysis of Risk Factors in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Immediate and Delayed Hemorrhage. Dig Dis Sci (2021).

Download citation


  • Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
  • Adverse events
  • Immediate hemorrhage
  • Delayed hemorrhage
  • Risk factors