title: Guidewire biliary cannulation does not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the contrast injection technique in low-risk and high-risk patients.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Guidewire (GW) cannulation can reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) by avoiding the opacification of the main pancreatic duct.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the effects of conventional contrast ERCP and GW cannulation of the common bile duct on the rate of PEP in low- and high-risk patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, comparative-intervention single-center study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Tertiary referral center.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients with biliary disease with an intact papilla were prospectively examined by ERCP.
  
  
  METHODS
  Biliary cannulation using a sphincterotome with contrast injection (ConI) or a hydrophilic GW without contrast injection.
  
  
  METHODS
  Pancreatitis rate in the GW group and the contrast injection (ConI) group.
  
  
  RESULTS
  PEP occurred in 60 of 1249 patients (4.8%), 35 of 678 (5.2%) in the GW group and 25 of 571 (4.4%) in the ConI group (not significant). The overall rate of PEP was significantly higher in high-risk patients (12.2%) than in low-risk patients (3.5%) (P < .001), but was similar for the 2 techniques within each of these 2 groups. In patients with unintended main pancreatic duct (MPD) cannulation or opacification, the rate of PEP was not significantly different with the GW (15.2%) and ConI (8.4%) techniques but was associated with a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (11.9%) than in patients in whom the contrast medium or GW did not enter the MPD (3.5%) (P < .001). Multivariate analysis indicated that more than 10 papillary cannulation attempts, MPD cannulation or opacification, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and precut methods were significant risk factors independently associated with PEP.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Lack of randomization.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  For selective cannulation of the CBD, the risk of inducing PEP is similar with the ConI and GW techniques in high-risk and low-risk patients. Any manipulation of the MPD must be considered a high-risk factor for PEP, such as multiple attempts on the papilla or use of the precut method.
authors.affiliation: Division of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Scientific Institute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy.
authors.forename: Alberto
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mariani
authors.forename: Antonella
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Giussani
authors.forename: Milena
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Di Leo
authors.forename: Sabrina
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Testoni
authors.forename: Pier Alberto
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Testoni
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002404:Catheterization / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods*; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D002760:Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000379:methods; D003135:Common Bile Duct; D003287:Contrast Media / Q000009:adverse effects*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015999:Multivariate Analysis; D010195:Pancreatitis / Q000209:etiology*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D016717:Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic / Q000009:adverse effects
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media