Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2009 Dec;70(6):1211-9.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.08.007.

Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Review

Guidewire versus conventional contrast cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Justin Cheung et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec.

Abstract

Background: The use of a guidewire (GW) for cannulation of the bile duct during ERCP may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

Objectives: A systematic review and meta-analysis of GW-guided versus conventional contrast (CC)-guided bile duct cannulation for the prevention PEP.

Design: A November 2008 search of gray literature, databases, reference lists, and meeting abstracts was conducted for randomized, controlled trials comparing GW and CC. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. The outcomes included PEP, primary cannulation success, and other adverse events.

Results: From 2132 citations, 7 randomized, controlled trials (5 noncrossover trials and 2 crossover trials) were included. Among noncrossover trials only, there was significant reduction in PEP when using a GW (3.2%) compared with CC (8.7%) (relative risk [RR] 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19-0.76). Subgroup analysis showed a significantly lower occurrence of PEP after GW entry versus CC injection of the pancreatic duct (1.1% vs 9.5%; RR 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.58). Among patients with a precut sphincterotomy from a failed primary cannulation, there was less PEP with GW cannulation compared with CC (2.4% vs 21.7%; RR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.04-1.04). The other adverse event rates were comparable between GW and CC groups (2% vs 2%; RR 1.05; 95% CI, 0.39-2.83). Primary cannulation success was significantly greater with GW use compared with CC (89% vs 78%; RR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.35).

Conclusion: ERCP GW cannulation reduces the risk of PEP compared with the use of CC. GW cannulation is associated with a higher cannulation success rate and less PEP after pancreatic duct entry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources