ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Safety and indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in liver transplant patients: an analysis of the United States' National Inpatient Sample database.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Common Language for Post-Transplant Anastomotic Biliary Strictures: Standardized Endoscopic Outcome Definitions and a Failure-Mode Roadmap.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Sedation-related complications during ERCP in liver transplant recipients: a retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Increased incidence of gastric food retention during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in liver transplant recipients: A retrospective cohort study.World journal of transplantation · 2025Article
- Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography cholangitis after endoscopic treatment of post-transplant biliary strictures: a retrospective study.BMC surgery · 2025Article
- Procedure-related readmissions following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a liver transplant cohort.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to treat biliary complications after a liver transplantation; however, the previously available literature on the safety of ERCP in liver transplant patients is limited. We aimed to study the safety of ERCP in liver transplant patients. Methods: We used a National Inpatient Sample database from 2016-2019 to identify patients who underwent ERCP and had a history of a liver transplantation, using the international classification of diseases, 10 Results: Liver transplant patients who underwent ERCP had a higher rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding compared to the general adult population (11.39% vs. 9.19%, 0.83% vs. 0.53%, respectively). However, the adjusted odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.49; P=0.36) and bleeding (aOR 1.41, 95%CI 0.58-3.46; P=0.45) were similar in both the liver transplant and no-transplant groups. There was no difference in the odds of post-ERCP cholangitis (aOR 1.26, 95%CI 0.80-2.01; P=0.32), and sepsis (aOR 0.94, 95%CI 0.66-1.34; P=0.76) between liver transplant and no transplant groups. Biliary stricture was the most common indication for ERCP in the liver transplant group, whereas choledocholithiasis was the main reason for ERCP in the general adult population. Conclusions: ERCP is a safe procedure for treating biliary complications in liver transplant patients. The odds of post-ERCP complications (pancreatitis, bleeding, sepsis, cholangitis) in liver transplant patients are comparable to those in patients with no transplantation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.