Sa1330 DIFFERENCES IN POST-ERCP ADVERSE EVENT RATES BETWEEN POST-LIVER TRANSPLANT PATIENTS AND PATIENTS WITH NATIVE HEPATOBILIARY ANATOMY

Catron, Tom; Shipley, Lindsey C.; Johnson, Dane; Mitchell, Rachell; Harrison, Devin; Baig, Kondal Kyanam Kabir; Shoreibah, Mohamed; Ahmed, Ali M.

doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.187

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ramesh et al performed a retrospective review of 210 ERCPs in 210 liver transplant patients for post-ERCP complications at the University of Alabama in Birmingham [ 23 ]. Catron et al performed a retrospective review of complications after 66 ERCPs in 43 liver transplant patients at the University of Alabama in Birmingham [ 24 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A subgroup analysis including only the studies that evaluated PEP was performed separately. It included four studies: Sanna et al [ 14 ], Singh [ 20 ], Li et al [ 21 ], and Catron et al [ 24 ]. The pooled OR for PEP in patients with liver transplant compared to patients without liver transplant was 1.289 (95% CI: 0.455 - 3.653, P = 0.633, I 2 = 72.88%) ( Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, various studies of the included cohort reported several indications for ERCP. The three most common indications for post-transplant ERCP, among many, included bile duct strictures, bile leaks, and choledocholithiasis [ 5 , 13 - 15 , 19 , 22 , 24 ]. The wide variety of indications for both liver transplant and post-transplant ERCP allow for a more complete perspective of the therapeutic effects of ERCP in multiple populations with variable risks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of the studies used in the meta-analysis are shown in Table 1 [5,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24].…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis [5,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. These studies include a total of 3,192 ERCPs performed on 1,787 patients.…”

Section: Post-ercp Complication Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Incidence of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Related Complications in Patients With Liver Transplant: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Existing literature on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications in patients with liver transplant remains scarce and largely inconsistent. We therefore aimed to systematically review and analyze the literature on complication rates associated with ERCP in patients with liver transplant. Methods:We performed a comprehensive literature search in Pub-Med, PubMed Central, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases from inception through March 2020 to identify all the studies that evaluated post-ERCP complications in patients with liver transplant. Effect estimates from the individual studies were extracted and combined using the random effect, generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, and a pooled odds ratio (OR) and event rates were calculated. Forest plots were generated, and publication bias was assessed for using conventional techniques.Results: Fourteen studies with a total of 1,787 patients were analyzed. In total, 3,192 ERCPs were performed on these patients. The pooled all-complication rate was 5.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.035 -0.075). Procedural complications analyzed included post-ERCP pancreatitis 3.4% (95% CI: 0.025 -0.047), bleeding 1.1% (95% CI: 0.006 -0.020), infections 0.2% (95% CI: 0.025 -0.047), and cholangitis 0.8% (95% CI: 0.004 -0.020). No cases of periprocedural death were reported. The pooled OR for post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with liver transplant compared to patients without liver transplant was 1.289 (95% CI: 0.455 -3.653, P = 0.633, I 2 = 72.88%). Conclusion:Post-ERCP complication rates in liver transplant patients are comparable to the general population and hence, peri-procedural evaluation and management may follow the current standards of care in this patient population.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%