Endoscopy 2020; 52(S 01): S302
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1704964
ESGE Days 2020 ePoster presentations
Colon and rectum 09:00–17:00 Thursday, April 23, 2020 ePoster area
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

ANALYSIS OF POST-ERCP PANCREATITIS RATES IN THE HUNGARIAN ERCP REGISTRY

D Pécsi
1   University of Pécs, Institute of Translational Medicine, Pécs, Hungary
,
L Szakó
1   University of Pécs, Institute of Translational Medicine, Pécs, Hungary
,
I Altorjay
2   University of Debrecen, Second Department of Medicine, Debrecen, Hungary
,
L Czakó
3   University of Szeged, First Department of Medicine, Szeged, Hungary
,
S Gódi
4   University of Pécs, First Department of Medicine, Pécs, Hungary
,
T Gyökeres
5    Medical Centre Hungarian Defence Forces, Gastroenterology, Budapest, Hungary
,
Z Szepes
3   University of Szeged, First Department of Medicine, Szeged, Hungary
,
Á Vincze
4   University of Pécs, First Department of Medicine, Pécs, Hungary
,
Hungarian Endoscopy Study Group › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 April 2020 (online)

Also available at
 

Aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the most frequently applied advanced endoscopic technique for therapeutic purposes. However, it comes with a significant risk of adverse events. We aimed to analyse the post-ERCP pancreatitis rates in the Hungarian ERCP registry.

Methods Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rates and prophylactic measures were analysed in the registry data. Until 15th of October 2019 we enrolled 3364 patients in the ERCP registry. From these patients 2706 cases were validated, 1596 were native papilla cases.

Results PEP occurred in 41 cases (1.5%) if all cases are considered, 2.3% (37/1596) in native papilla cases. PEP prophylaxis (indomethacin (IND) suppositories or prophylactic pancreatic stents (PPS)) were not applied in 35.5% (566/1596) of the cases. PEP developed in 2.3% (13/566) of patient without prophylaxis, 38.5% of these PEP cases were moderately severe (n = 4) and severe (n = 1). IND alone was administered in 53.3% of the cases (851/1596), the PEP rate was 2.5% (21/851) in these patients. PPS alone was inserted in 4.3% of the cases (68/1596), only 1 patient developed PEP (1.5%, 1/68). Both PPS and IND were applied in 111/1596 cases, 2 patients (1.8%, 2/111) developed PEP. In 186 patients with multiple pancreatic cannulation, PPS was inserted only in 93 (50%). PEP developed in 5 cases (5.4%), 3 of them were moderately severe or severe.

Conclusions While the average rate of PEP is low in our registry, prophylactic measures are underutilized. Potentially preventable PEP cases were identified in our analysis, and high ratio of these patients developed moderately severe and severe PEP.