A new grading system to evaluate the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 44, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 160-165

  Zuber Jerger, Ina ^a   Endlicher, Esther ^a   Kullmann, Frank ^a   Gelbmann, Cornelia M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF REGENSBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Complication; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); Grading systems; Risk

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BILE LEAKAGE; BLEEDING; CARDIOPULMONARY INSUFFICIENCY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PANCREATITIS; PERFORATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RISK ASSESSMENT; STENT; TREATMENT INDICATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BILIARY TRACT DISEASES; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY, ENDOSCOPIC RETROGRADE; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SPHINCTEROTOMY, ENDOSCOPIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 60449107114     PISSN: 09441174     EISSN: 14355922     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-008-2295-1     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;60:721-731.
2. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dosher PJ. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909-918.
3. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennery MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: A prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;54:425-434.
4. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TCK, Wong RCK, Ferrari AP, Montes H, et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;56:652-656.
5. Deans GT, Sedman P, Martin DF, Roxston CMS, Leow CK, Thomas WEG, et al. Are complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy age-related? Gut 1997;41:545-548.
6. Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A, Lachter J, Chermech I, Karban A, et al. Outcome and early complications of ERCP: A prospective single center study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:352-355.
7. Christensen M, Rasmussen V, Schulze S, Rosenberg J. Vagal withdrawal during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000;35:96-101.
8. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, Dinelli M, et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: A prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:417-423.
9. Fröhlich E, Gonvers JJ, Vader JP, Dubois RW, Burnand B. Appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy: Risk of complications. Endoscopy 1999;31:684-686.
10. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costen F, Beradinis F, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: A prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998:48:1-10.
11. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Greenen JE, Russell RCG, Meyers WC. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: An attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383-393.
12. Cotton PB. Outcomes of endoscopy procedures: Struggling towards definitions. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:511-514.
13. Fleischer DE. Better definitions of endoscopic complications and other negative outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 1994;40:514-518.
14. Schutz MS, Abbott RM. Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: A new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;51:535-539.