ERCP komplikasyonları; sıklığı, etkileyen faktörler ve yönetimi

Year 2018, , 12 - 16, 26.04.2018

Nurettin Tunç Salih Kılıç Abdurahman Şahin , Ulvi Demirel , Orhan Kürşat Poyrazoğlu İbrahim Halil Bahçecioğlu Mehmet Yalnız

https://doi.org/10.17940/endoskopi.434891

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Giriş ve Amaç: Safra yolları ve pankreas hastalıklarının tanı ve tedavisinde yaygın olarak kullanılan bir yöntem olan endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi ile ciddi komplikasyonlar bildirilmiştir. Bu komplikasyonlar endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi işlemine bağlı sfinkterotomi yerinden kanama, pankreatit, kolanjit, perforasyon ile kardiyopulmoner komplikasyonlar (hipoksi, hipotansiyon ve aritmi gibi) ve ölümdür. Bu çalışmadaki amacımız endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi işlemi ile kompliklasyon gelişen hastalarda risk faktörlerini saptamak ve bu hastalarda uygun tanısal ve terapötik yaklaşımı belirlemektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: 2016 yılı içinde endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi işlemi yapılan 487 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak elde edildi. Bulgular: Endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi işlemi uygulanan 487 vakanın 304’ü (%62,4) kadın, 183’ü (%37,6) erkekti. Ortalama yaş 61,53 (min-maks: 18-99) yıl idi. Post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi komplikasyonları 53 (%10,8) vakada görülmüş; 37’si (%7,6) pankreatit, 15’i (%3,1) kanama, 1’i (%0,2) duodenum perforasyonu olarak raporlanmıştı. İğne uçlu sfinkterotom ile ön kesi yapılan 2/67 (%2,9) vakada post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi pankreatiti gelişmiş olmasına karşı ön kesi yapılmayan 65/420 (%8,33) vakada post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi pankreatiti gelişmişti. Post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi pankreatiti iğne uçlu sfinkterotom ile ön kesi yapılanlarda daha az oranda görülmekle birlikte istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildi (p: 0,127). Yapılan endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografinin kaçıncı endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi işlemi olduğu ve post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografipankreatiti ilişkisi karşılaştırıldığında post-endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi pankreatiti gelişimi ilk kez endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi yapılanlarda (%91) anlamlı olarak daha sık gözlenmiş (p: 0,041), post endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi komplikasyon olarak mortalite hiç izlenmemişti. Sonuç: Post endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi pankreatiti endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografinin en sık komplikasyonudur. Endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi ile ciddi komplikasyonlar görülebilmesine rağmen uygun endikasyonda endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi yapılması ve oluşan komplikasyonların erken tanınması morbidite ve mortalitenin önlenmesinde en önemli adımdır.

Keywords

Post endoskopik retrograt kolanjiopankreatikografi komplikasyonlar

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: frequency, contributing factors and management

Abstract

Background and Aims: Serious complications have been reported with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, a widely used method for the diagnosis and treatment of bile duct and pancreatic diseases. These complications include hemorrhage from the sphincterotomy site due to the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure; pancreatitis; cholangitis; cardiopulmonary complications such as perforation, hypoxia, and hypotension, arrhythmia; and death. Our aim in this study is to determine the risk factors in patients with complications of the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedure and to determine the appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic approach in these patients. Materials and Methods: Data on 487 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 487 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, 304 (62.4%) women and 183 (37.6%) men. The mean age was 61.53 (range: 18-99) years. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications occurred in 53 (10.8%) patients; 37 (7.6%) reported pancreatitis; 15 (3.1%), bleeding; and 1 (0.2%), duodenal perforation. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography improved in 2/67 (2.9%) cases with needle knife pre-cut sphincterotomy and did not develop in cases of standard sphincterotomy 65/420 (8.33%). Post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was less frequent in pre-cut sphincterotomy constructs, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.127). When the number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and post-ERCP cases who developed pancreatitis was compared, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was significantly more frequent for the first time endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography applied (91%) (p=0.041). Mortality was not observed in post-ERCP pancreatitis. Conclusion: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Although serious complications can be seen with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, the technique should be used with the appropriate indications, and early identification of complications is the most important step in preventing morbidity and mortality.

Keywords

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications, pancreatitis

References

• 1. Kıraç CO, Asıl M, Demir A. 4 yıllık endoskopik retrograd kolanjiopankreatografi vakalarımızın retrospektif değerlendirilmesi. Genel Tıp Derg 2016;26:53-7.
• 2. Kondo S, Isayama H, Akahane M, et al. Detection of common bile duct stones: comparison between endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance cholangiography, and helical-computed-tomographic cholangiography. Eur J Radiol 2005;54:271-5.
• 3. Huang LY, Liu YX, Wu CR, et al. Application of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in biliarypancreatic diseases. Chinese Med J 2009;122:2967-72.
• 4. Sakai Y, Tsuyuguchi T, Ishihara T, et al. Is ERCP really necessary in case of suspected spontaneous passage of bile duct stones? World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:3283-7.
• 5. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1781-8.
• 6. Parvesh Kumar J, Vinay BN. Indications and complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures in a tertiary care centre. Int J Adv Med 2016;3:838-41.
• 7. Cotton P, Williams C. ERCP and Therapy. Risks and Indications. In: Cotton P, Williams C, editors. Practical Gastrointestyinal Endoscopy. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1996;186.
• 8. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383-93.
• 9. Atamanalp SS, Yıldırgan Mİ, Kantarcı A. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): outcomes of 3136 cases over 10 years. Turk J Med Sci 2011;41:615-21.
• 10. Ülkü S, İbrahim G, Altuğ Ş. Terapotik ERCP komplikasyonları için risk faktörleri: Tek merkezli prospektif çalışma. Akademik Gastroenteroloji Dergisi, 2006;5:163-8.
• 11. Imbeth AP, Guzman LI, Julliao H, Salej J, Galvan C. Complications and risk factors in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at militar central in Bogota in the period January 2011 to June 2012. Revista Med 2014;22:20-7.
• 12. Cotton PB, Donald A. Garrow, et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11.497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc Volume 2009;70:80-8.
• 13. Fritz E, Kirchgatterer A, Hubner D, et al. ERCP is safe and effective in patients 80 years of age and older compared with younger patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:899-905.
• 14. Katsinelos P, Paroutoglou G, Kountouras J, et al. Efficacy and safety of therapeutic ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:417-23.
• 15. Kandemir A, Arabul M, Çelik M, et al. Yaşlı hastalarda gastrointestinal endoskopik işlemlerin değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Geriatrics 2013;16:43-7.
• 16. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425-34.
• 17. Badalov N, Tenner S, Baillie J. The Prevention, recognition and treatment of post-ERCP pancreatitis. JOP 2009;10:88-97.
• 18. Cappell MS. Acute pancreatitis: etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and therapy. Med Clin North Am 2008;92:889-923.
• 19. Cooper ST, Slivka A. Incidence, risk factor, and prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastroenterol Clin Nort Am 2007;36:259-76.
• 20. David Zagalsky, Juan Lasa. Needle-knife fistulotomy and risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;86:247-8.