Download PDF
Endoscopy 2016; 48(05): 424-431
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-101407
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Prospective evaluation of bacteremia rates and infectious complications among patients undergoing single-operator choledochoscopy during ERCP

Nirav Thosani
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
,
Richard S. Zubarik
2   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Vermont Hospitals, Burlington, Vermont, United States
,
Rajan Kochar
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
,
Shivangi Kothari
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
,
Neeraj Sardana
2   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Vermont Hospitals, Burlington, Vermont, United States
,
Tu Nguyen
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
,
Subhas Banerjee
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 08 August 2015

accepted after revision 01 December 2015

Publication Date:
26 February 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Choledochoscopy is increasingly performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for direct bile duct visualization. Choledochoscopy necessitates irrigation of the bile duct with water or saline, which may increase intrabiliary pressure and consequently the risks of bacteremia and cholangitis. The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the risk of bacteremia and infectious complications in patients undergoing single-operator choledochoscopy (SOC).

Patients and methods: Patients requiring ERCP with SOC at two tertiary care centers were enrolled prospectively. Blood cultures were obtained immediately before the ERCP, after completion of the ERCP portion of the procedure (to determine ERCP-related bacteremia), and 15 minutes after completion of SOC.

Results: A total of 72 patients (mean age 64 years; 51.4 % male) underwent ERCP with SOC. True positive blood cultures were noted in 20 patients (27.8 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 17.86 % – 39.59 %), of whom 6 patients (8.3 %; 95 %CI 3.12 % – 17.26 %) had transient bacteremia following ERCP. Of 14 patients (19.4 %; 95 %CI 11.05 % – 30.46 %) with sustained bacteremia following ERCP or SOC, 10 patients (13.9 %; 95 %CI 6.86 % – 24.06 %) had sustained bacteremia related to SOC. Despite the use of post-procedure intravenous antibiotic administration, seven patients (9.7 %; 95 %CI 3.99 – 19.01 %) required further antibiotic treatment for infectious complications, three of whom (4.2 %; 95 %CI 0.86 % – 11.69 %) were hospitalized in order to receive intravenous antibiotic therapy.

Conclusion: The bacteremia associated with ERCP with SOC and the subsequent risk of hospitalization for infectious complications suggest that preprocedure antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered for patients undergoing SOC, particularly in older patients and those with prior stent placement or undergoing intraductal stone lithotripsy.

Trial registration: clinical trials.gov (NCT01414400).

 

  • References

  • 1 Nelson DB. Infectious disease complications of GI endoscopy: Part I, endogenous infections. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 546-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lam SK, Tsui JK, Chan PK et al. How often does bacteraemia occur following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)?. Endoscopy 1977; 9: 231-234
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Parker HW, Geenen JE, Bjork JT et al. A prospective analysis of fever and bacteremia following ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 1979; 25: 102-103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Siegel JH, Berger SA, Sable RA et al. Low incidence of bacteremia following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Am J Gastroenterol 1979; 71: 465-468
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cotton PB, Connor P, Rawls E et al. Infection after ERCP, and antibiotic prophylaxis: a sequential quality-improvement approach over 11 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 471-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Banerjee S, Shen B et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 791-798
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Khashab MA, Chithadi KV et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ueki T, Mizuno M, Ota S et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation is useful for obtaining clear images of the bile duct during peroral cholangioscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1046-1051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Doi S, Yasuda I, Nakashima M et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation vs. conventional saline irrigation for peroral video cholangioscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 1070-1075
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lau WY, Fan ST, Yip WC et al. Optimal irrigation pressures in operative choledochoscopy. Aust N Z J Surg 1988; 58: 63-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Terheggen G, Neuhaus H. New options of cholangioscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2010; 39: 827-844
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Chen YK. Preclinical characterization of the Spyglass peroral cholangiopancreatoscopy system for direct access, visualization, and biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 303-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chen YK, Pleskow DK. SpyGlass single-operator peroral cholangiopancreatoscopy system for the diagnosis and therapy of bile-duct disorders: a clinical feasibility study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 832-841
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Aronson MD, Bor DH. Blood cultures. Ann Intern Med 1987; 106: 246-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hall MM, Ilstrup DM, Washington JA et al. Effect of volume of blood cultured on detection of bacteremia. J Clin Microbiol 1976; 3: 643-645
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Weinstein MP, Murphy JR, Reller LB et al. The clinical significance of positive blood cultures: a comprehensive analysis of 500 episodes of bacteremia and fungemia in adults. II. Clinical observations, with special reference to factors influencing prognosis. Rev Infect Dis 1983; 5: 54-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Washington 2nd JA, Ilstrup DM. Blood cultures: issues and controversies. Rev Infect Dis 1986; 8: 792-802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wilson W, Taubert KA, Gewitz M et al. Prevention of infective endocarditis: guidelines from the American Heart Association: a guideline from the American Heart Association Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease Committee, Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young, and the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia, and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group. Circulation 2007; 116: 1736-1754
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Levy MJ, Norton ID, Wiersema MJ et al. Prospective risk assessment of bacteremia and other infectious complications in patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 672-678
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Levy MJ, Norton ID, Clain JE et al. Prospective study of bacteremia and complications With EUS FNA of rectal and perirectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 684-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hirota WK, Petersen K, Baron TH et al. Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 475-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dajani AS, Taubert KA, Wilson W et al. Prevention of bacterial endocarditis: recommendations by the American Heart Association. Clin Infect Dis 1997; 25: 1448-1458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Crasta K, Daly CG, Mitchell D et al. Bacteraemia due to dental flossing. J Clin Periodontol 2009; 36: 323-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tomas I, Diz P, Tobías A et al. Periodontal health status and bacteraemia from daily oral activities: systematic review/meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39: 213-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Basioukas P, Vezakis A, Zarkotou O et al. Isolated microorganisms in plastic biliary stents placed for benign and malignant diseases. Ann Gastroenterol 2014; 27: 399-403
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schneider J, Hapfelmeier A, Fremd J et al. Biliary endoprosthesis: a prospective analysis of bacterial colonization and risk factors for sludge formation. PLoS One 2014; 9: e110112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jethwa P, Breuning E, Bhati C et al. The microbiological impact of pre-operative biliary drainage on patients undergoing hepato-biliary-pancreatic (HPB) surgery. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 25: 1175-1180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Herzog T, Belyaev O, Muller CA et al. Bacteribilia after preoperative bile duct stenting: a prospective study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 457-462
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Subhani JM, Kibbler C, Dooley JS. Review article: antibiotic prophylaxis for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999; 13: 103-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jacobson BC, Baron TH, Adler DG et al. ASGE guideline: The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 363-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar