| Literature DB >> 34765474 |
Mingzhe Weng1, Lubing Wang2, Hao Weng1, Jun Gu1, Xuefeng Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in infant patients (age <1 year) differ from those in adults. A paucity of data and concerns about the potential lower effectiveness and more adverse effects limit its utility, even in tertiary care centres. In this study, we retrospectively analysed the indications, success rates, and adverse effects of ERCP in these groups.Entities:
Keywords: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); conventional endoscopy; neonatal and infant patients; pancreaticobiliary maljunction; post-ERCP pancreatitis
Year: 2021 PMID: 34765474 PMCID: PMC8578769 DOI: 10.21037/tp-21-406
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Pediatr ISSN: 2224-4336
Figure 1Pictures during ERCP operation. (A) Live performance of ERCP in an infant (8-month-old). (B) Endoscopic view of ERCP in an infant (8-month-old). The endoscope could not go any further. (C) X-ray of ERCP in an infant (8-month-old). (D) X-ray of ERCP in an adult. The yellow arrow indicates the direction of cannulation. This image is published with the consent from the patient’s parents. ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Indications for infant’s ERCP
| Indication for ERCP | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Biliary infection | 5 (29.4) |
| Jaundice | 3 (17.6) |
| Pancreatitis | 5 (29.4) |
| Choledochal cyst | 3 (17.6) |
| Bile leak | 1 (5.9) |
| Total | 17 |
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
ERCP diagnoses and interventions
| ERCP diagnoses and interventions | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Total | 17 |
| Diagnoses | |
| Normal | 1 (5.9) |
| Choledochal cyst | 4 (23.5) |
| CBD stone | 6 (35.3) |
| CBD stricture | 1 (5.9) |
| Bile leak | 1 (5.9) |
| PBM | 8 (47.1) |
| Pancreatic protease embolus | 6 (35.3) |
| Interventions | |
| Any | 15 (88.2) |
| Biliary sphincterotomy | 11 (64.7) |
| CBD stone extraction | 4 (23.5) |
| Biliary stent | 11 (64.7) |
| PD stone extraction | 3 (17.6) |
| Pancreatic stent | 2 (11.8) |
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; CBD, common bile duct; PBM, pancreaticobiliary maljunction; PD, pancreatic duct.
Complications of infant’s ERCP
| Complications | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Pancreatitis | 2 (11.8) |
| Mild | 2 (11.8) |
| Moderate | 0 (0) |
| Severe | 0 (0) |
| Immediate sphincterotomy bleed | 1 (5.9) |
| Delayed sphincterotomy bleed | 0 (0) |
| Esophageal mucosal laceration | 0 (0) |
| Perforations | 0 (0) |
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
Results of the univariate analysis of factors and their influence on development of PEP
| Variable | No PEP (n=14) | PEP (n=2) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female, No. (%) | 7 (50%) | 1 (50%) | 1 |
| Age, mean ± SD | 10.5±2.0 | 11.5±0.7 | 0.509 |
| CC | 1 (7.1%) | 2 (100%) | 0.002* |
| PBM | 6 (42.9%) | 2 (100%) | 0.131 |
| Pancreatic protease embolus | 4 (28.6%) | 2 (100%) | 0.131 |
| Bile duct stone | 4 (28.6%) | 0 (0%) | 0.383 |
| Recurrent acute pancreatitis | 4 (28.6%) | 2 (100%) | 0.025* |
| Diagnostic | 1 (7.1%) | 1 (50%) | 0.086 |
| Therapeutic | 13 (92.9%) | 1 (50%) | 0.086 |
| EST | 11 (78.6%) | 1 (50%) | 0.383 |
| Pancreatic duct cannulation and injection | 3 (21.4%) | 2 (100%) | 0.025* |
| Pancreatic stent placed | 1 (7.1%) | 1 (50%) | 0.086 |
*, statistically significant. PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis; SD, standard deviation; CC, choledochal cyst; PBM, pancreaticobiliary maljunction; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy.
Results of multivariate analysis of factors and their influence on the development of PEP
| Variable | P value | Odds ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Pancreatic duct cannulated and injection | 0.02 | 1.667 (0.815–3.409) |
| Recurrent acute pancreatitis | 0.04 | 1.5 (0.852–2.641) |
PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis; CI, confidence interval.