ArticleCureus2024
Analysis of the Effectiveness of Second Attempt Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) 24 Hours (Second Day) After Primary Failure.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a minimally invasive intervention that has established itself as the gold standard therapeutic option for various pancreaticobiliary conditions. Deep cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD) is essential in ERCP. However, cannulation is not possible in approximately 20% of the cases with the usual techniques even when performed by highly trained professionals or at major healthcare institutions. In case of failure on the first attempt, alternative choices include redoing the procedure (on the second attempt) or moving on to more proficient endoscopic methods such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or radiology-aided techniques (rendezvous procedures), totally percutaneous approaches, or surgical treatments.
objectiveTo analyze the effectiveness of the second attempt ERCP 24 hours (second day) after primary failure. METHODOLOGY: This analytical study was conducted to check the outcomes of second attempt ERCP in patients with prior failed cannulation, from June 20, 2023, to November 20, 2023, at the Department of Gastroenterology, Lady Reading Hospital, Peshawar. Patients of either sex, aged >16 years with failed biliary cannulation, and who were otherwise clinically stable were included in the study. Patients with surgically modified anatomy, an unidentified main duodenal papilla, or a history of sphincterotomy at another setup were excluded. Outcomes were assessed in terms of gaining deep biliary access (cannulation) using a therapeutic duodenoscope and endoscopy system supported by a fluoroscope while using a wire-guided sphincterotome. Factors linked to second ERCP cannulation success or failure were analyzed using SPSS version 24.
resultsNinety-four patients were enrolled including 61 (64.9%) males and 33 (35.10%) females. The mean age of the participants was 39.01±14.831 years. The most common indication for the intervention was CBD stones, which were present in 70 (74.5%) patients. Successful cannulation on the second attempt was achieved in 72 (76.6%) patients. Experienced endoscopists achieved a greater proportion of successful cannulation (86.8%) compared to 33.3% by endoscopists with lower experience (p-value: <0.001). Logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict the outcomes (cannulation), which revealed an odds ratio for endoscopist experience of 33.604 (95% confidence interval: 6.948-162.52).
conclusionA second ERCP attempt 24 hours after the primary failed attempt appears to be the best course of action for the majority of clinically stable patients.
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.