Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to diagnose and manage conditions of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Though effective, it is associated with common adverse events (AEs). The purpose of this study is to systematically review ERCP AE rates and report up-to-date pooled estimates. Methods and analysis A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted of relevant medical databases through 10 November 2020. A study team of eight data abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess quality and abstract data in parallel, with any two concordant entries constituting agreement and with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be the pooled incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with secondary outcomes including post-ERCP bleeding, cholangitis, perforation, cholecystitis, death and unplanned healthcare encounters. Secondary outcomes will also include rates of specific and overall AEs within clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models will be used to perform meta-analyses of these outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression. Subgroup analyses based on median dates of data collection across studies will be performed to determine whether AE rates have changed over time. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this study as it is a planned meta-analysis of previously published data. Participant consent is similarly not required. Dissemination is planned via presentation at relevant conferences in addition to publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020220221.

[1]  M. A. Khan,et al.  Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Nonagenarians: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2021, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[2]  B. Attar,et al.  Temporal trends and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the United States: a nationwide analysis , 2020, Endoscopy.

[3]  M. Raimondo,et al.  Use of ERCP in the United States over the past decade , 2020, Endoscopy International Open.

[4]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[5]  F. Radaelli,et al.  ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline , 2019, Endoscopy.

[6]  G. Pantaleo,et al.  Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance in an Italian regional database study. , 2019, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[7]  Linda S. Lee,et al.  Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees. , 2018, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[8]  H. Sayles,et al.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cirrhosis - a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on adverse events , 2018, World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  Linda S. Lee,et al.  Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice. , 2018, Gastroenterology.

[10]  Ananya Das,et al.  Utilization trends in inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A cross-sectional US experience , 2017, Endoscopy International Open.

[11]  Amy Wang,et al.  Adverse events associated with ERCP. , 2017, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[12]  M. Heyman,et al.  Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Pediatric Patients; A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. , 2016, The Journal of pediatrics.

[13]  M. Hernán,et al.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[14]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[15]  Sumant Inamdar,et al.  Weekend vs. Weekday Admissions for Cholangitis Requiring an ERCP: Comparison of Outcomes in a National Cohort , 2016, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[16]  Representative,et al.  The role of endoscopy in benign pancreatic disease. , 2015, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[17]  R. Humphries,et al.  Superbugs on Duodenoscopes: the Challenge of Cleaning and Disinfection of Reusable Devices , 2015, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[18]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[19]  Vikesh K. Singh,et al.  Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. , 2015, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[20]  P. Jamidar,et al.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related adverse events: general overview. , 2015, Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America.

[21]  L. F. Muscarella Risk of transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and related "superbugs" during gastrointestinal endoscopy. , 2014, World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[22]  Andrew Forbes,et al.  Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. , 2014, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  Michelle A. Anderson,et al.  The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with biliary neoplasia. , 2013, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[24]  Colin D Johnson,et al.  Classification of acute pancreatitis—2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus , 2012, Gut.

[25]  Richard S. Kwon,et al.  A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[26]  Michelle A. Anderson,et al.  The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. , 2011, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[27]  Su Golder,et al.  Meta-analyses of Adverse Effects Data Derived from Randomised Controlled Trials as Compared to Observational Studies: Methodological Overview , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[28]  A. Mariani,et al.  Risk Factors for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in High- and Low-Volume Centers and Among Expert and Non-Expert Operators: A Prospective Multicenter Study , 2010, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[29]  B. Petersen,et al.  A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. , 2010, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[30]  Joseph Romagnuolo,et al.  Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. , 2009, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[31]  G. Guyatt,et al.  GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[32]  C. Camargo,et al.  Direct Medical Costs of Acute Pancreatitis Hospitalizations in the United States , 2007, Pancreas.

[33]  Robert Fanelli,et al.  ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas. , 2005, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[34]  Svend Schulze,et al.  Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[35]  I. Olkin,et al.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting , 2000 .

[36]  G. Smith,et al.  Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test , 1997, BMJ.

[37]  T. Zágoni,et al.  Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[38]  E G Hughes,et al.  Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis , 1996, Seminars in reproductive endocrinology.

[39]  C. Begg,et al.  Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. , 1994, Biometrics.