ライフサイエンスコーパス: ERCP

1 ERCP after Roux-en-Y altered small bowel anatomy is feas

2 ERCP approaches are no longer appropriate in that contex

3 ERCP at the level of the intact papilla in long limb Rou

4 ERCP is the most frequently used modality for the diagno

5 ERCP showed stricture of distal common bile duct in 12 p

6 ERCP was performed within 24 hours after MRC.

7 13018 ERCPs were performed by 85 endoscopists (March 2007 - Ma

8 ual facility volumes above approximately 150 ERCPs per year may protect against UHE.

9 lity volume until an inflection point of 157 ERCPs per year was reached.

10 ive complication registrations, leaving 1931 ERCP procedures to be analyzed.

11 For these patients, 4 VLCs and 2 ERCP/ES were performed.

12 Between 2009 and 2011, 2185 ERCPs were performed at the Karolinska University Hospit

13 In an analysis of outcomes of 68,642 ERCPs performed in 3 states, we found a higher-than-expe

14 We collected data on 68,642 ERCPs, performed at 635 facilities in California, Florid

15 After ERCP, patients were randomized 2:1 to sphincterotomy (n

16 38.0% of patients after MRCP and 68.1% after ERCP.

17 ravenous magnesium sulphate before and after ERCP reduces the incidence and the severity of post-ERCP

18 actice patterns for performance of CCY after ERCP for choledocholithiasis using data from 3 large sta

19 the high-dose indometacin group 5 days after ERCP.

20 standard-dose indometacin group 2 days after ERCP.

21 r limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights.

22 ) or placebo 60 min before and 6 hours after ERCP.

23 ed eligible patients (1:1) immediately after ERCP to receive either two 50 mg indometacin suppositori

24 g suppository of glycerin immediately after ERCP, without placement of a pancreatic stent.

25 al indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP.

26 ceived rectal indometacin, immediately after ERCP.

27 frequency and severity of pancreatitis after ERCP in high-risk patients.

28 Pancreatitis after ERCP occurred in 141 (14%) of 1037 patients-76 (15%) of

29 41 patients who developed pancreatitis after ERCP, were considered serious as all required admission

30 ese patients for signs of pancreatitis after ERCP.

31 dy was the development of pancreatitis after ERCP.

32 administration to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP.

33 sk for the development of pancreatitis after ERCP.

34 s, we found that CCY was not performed after ERCP for almost half of the cases.

35 d variation in risk for adverse events after ERCPs among facilities, and volume is the strongest pred

36 All ERCP-procedures were also registered in the Swedish regi

37 Among all ERCPs, 5.8% resulted in a UHE within 7 days and 10.2% wi

38 primary endpoint was number of UHEs with an ERCP-related event within 7 days of ERCP; secondary endp

39 complications of E or PD had ductal anatomy (ERCP/MRCP) which predicted failure because of significan

40 at presentation, blood test results, EUS and ERCP findings, and clinical manifestations during the fo

41 re the most common pancreatic malignancy and ERCP, as well as EUS can identify and sample the solid a

42 MRCP and ERCP images were read centrally by 3 radiologists and 2

43 ed to be temporally associated with MRCP and ERCP, respectively.

44 tion rates (post automated reprocessing) and ERCP technical success rates.

45 e Swedish registry for gallstone surgery and ERCP (GallRiks) and correlations between the grading sys

46 -day follow-up of both gallstone surgery and ERCP is mandatory, as is an additional 6-month follow-up

47 l quality registry for gallstone surgery and ERCP, serving as a base for audit of gallstone disease t

48 Registrations of all cholecystectomies and ERCPs are performed online by the surgeon or endoscopist

49 es, laparoscopic or conventional, as well as ERCP in a population-based setting.

50 ent, MRC demonstrated CBD stones not seen at ERCP, consistent with probable passage.

51 th associated multiple biliary strictures at ERCP.

52 and then compared the findings with those at ERCP.

53 in patients without contraindications before ERCP.

54 ) of rectal indometacin within 30 min before ERCP.

55 s were found to have CBD stones confirmed by ERCP.

56 Pancreatic endotherapy by ERCP for the treatment of biliary strictures and chronic

57 Photodynamic therapy guided by ERCP may provide improved palliation from biliary obstru

58 f obstruction to not longer than 48 hours by ERCP + ES decreased morbidity.

59 P and endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) were included.

60 se on endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP).

61 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) under procedu

62 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and stent placement, and a high number of previous

63 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) between March 26, 2008, and October 28, 2009.

64 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can result in failure of common bile duct (CBD) st

65 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) causes pancreatic inflammation, and studied the ef

66 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) continues to mature.

67 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cytology, are problematic because of a substantial

68 oscopic Retrograde CholangioPancreatography (ERCP) findings as applicable.

69 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the detection of CBD stones in all patients.

70 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 59 patients with gallstone, other benign diseas

71 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients, the optimal dose is unknown

72 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in management of malignant hilar obstruction (MHO)

73 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the United States.

74 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in these patients, avoiding rescue surgery.

75 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a technically challenging endoscopic procedure,

76 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (

77 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MR

78 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or surgical drainage procedures, such as pancreati

79 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

80 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

81 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) rates, and postoperative complications.

82 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were compared with the MR cholangiograms obtained

83 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with manometry and sphincterotomy.

84 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with or without sphincterotomy and/or stent placem

85 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with stone extraction reduces recurrent biliary ev

86 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 19 patients; and percutaneous transhepatic cholan

87 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and gallbladder surgery during the index admissio

88 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials.

89 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), clinical examination, and/or histologic analysis

90 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), resulting in substantial morbidity and occasional

91 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), sphincterotomy, and common bile duct (CBD) cleara

92 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the most commonly performed procedure for cholang

93 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with an incidence of 3.5 to 15%, is post ERCP pan

94 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

95 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

96 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

97 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

98 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

99 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

100 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

101 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

102 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

103 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

104 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

105 oscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

106 atography with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ERCP+LC) vs laparoscopic common bile duct exploration wi

107 nto an observational study with conventional ERCP managemeny.

108 ng 30-day LOS, 93% probability of decreasing ERCP use, and 72% probability of increasing complication

109 f alternative imaging modalities, diagnostic ERCP is rarely indicated.

110 Of the 780 patients who underwent diagnostic ERCP, pancreatitis developed in 26 patients (3.3%).

111 The effectiveness of early ERCP +/- ES in this setting is controversial.

112 fety during procedural sedation for elective ERCP/EUS by reducing the frequency of hypoxemia, severe

113 If no stone was found by EUS, ERCP would not be performed and patients were followed-u

114 hen a CBD stone was disclosed by linear EUS, ERCP with stone extraction was performed.

115 ere assessed, and 236 patients had evaluable ERCPs.

116 by EUS, nine had successful ERCP, one failed ERCP (later treated successfully by surgical interventio

117 Patients who failed ERCP were referred for surgical intervention.

118 Early group had fewer ERCPs (15% vs 29%, P = 0.038), faster time to surgery (1

119 but 69% of facilities performed 100 or fewer ERCPs per year.

120 elated with histopathology/surgical findings/ERCP findings as applicable.

121 Following ERCP, 90 (5%) of 1920 patients had acute cholangitis, 14

122 urgent cholecystectomy, and 12.0% following ERCP.

123 For ERCP to be the optimal initial test strategy, a prevalen

124 A total of 7445 patients were included for ERCP and 1690 for PTBD.

125 adult patients with a medical indication for ERCP are to be randomized to receive either 4930 mg magn

126 -classification is a novel grading scale for ERCP-complexity.

127 launches a new complexity grading scale for ERCP-the H.O.U.S.E.-classification.

128 centers, a new complexity grading system for ERCP is warranted.

129 %; it was 8.2% and 17.1% in patients who had ERCP and no intervention, respectively (P < .001).

130 11.3 and 10.1 months in the patients who had ERCP and no intervention, respectively.

131 ater is an accepted measure of competence in ERCP training and practice, yet prior studies focused on

132 examine the literature over the last year in ERCP and EUS as they apply to specific pancreatic disord

133 linical efficacy, utilization of PS at index ERCP may reduce patient's discomfort by avoiding PTBD an

134 nine hundred fifty-four of those were index-ERCPs.

135 nation) versus 793.17 US dollars for initial ERCP.

136 When analyzed by type of malignant neoplasm, ERCP was associated with a lower rate of adverse events

137 Seven hundred and ninety-nine ERCPs (78.8%) were conducted in participants who were no

138 duct abnormalities were observed in 60.2% of ERCP images.

139 Classifications of the complexity of ERCP have been presented, but do not include modern endo

140 alization is the most common complication of ERCP.

141 llars for initial MRC (including the cost of ERCP following a negative MRC examination) versus 793.17

142 with an ERCP-related event within 7 days of ERCP; secondary endpoints included number of UHEs within

143 ble of effectively reducing the incidence of ERCP-induced pancreatitis has found its way into clinica

144 nic pancreatitis was established by means of ERCP findings.

145 n quality and outcomes in the performance of ERCP in 3 large American states.

146 from 5.3% to 1.5% (P < .001), while rates of ERCP+LC increased from 52.8% to 85.7% (P < .001).

147 On recognition of ERCP as a key risk factor for infection, targeted patien

148 opic ultrasonography complements the role of ERCP and may provide a tissue diagnosis through fine-nee

149 ot taking a statin medication at the time of ERCP, while 363 participants were on statin medications

150 ts were on statin medications at the time of ERCP; 118 and 245 participants were taking high dose sta

151 e pancreatitis with regards to the timing of ERCP and cholecystectomy as well as management of pancre

152 ain study inclusion criteria were (a) use of ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)

153 The use of ERCP to guide selective placement of pancreatic sphincte

154 The use of ERCP, intraoperative cholangiography, endoscopic ultraso

155 ones, and can prevent the unnecessary use of ERCP.

156 The median number of ERCPs performed each year was 68.7, but 69% of facilitie

157 The mean number of ERCPs to achieve resolution was lower for cSEMS (2.14) v

158 within 24 hours of admission reduced rate of ERCPs, time to surgery, and 30-day length-of-stay.

159 C and to evaluate features of PSC disease on ERCP in order to be able to manage this disease better.

160 nstrates that the most common PSC finding on ERCP is involvement of both the extrahepatic and intrahe

161 tients did not have bile duct involvement on ERCP, and their disease was diagnosed by liver biopsy as

162 y-three participants underwent more than one ERCP during the study period.

163 4-detector CT within 2 months of MRCP and/or ERCP.

164 measured and compared with pathology and/or ERCP.

165 reated with empirical cholecystectomy and/or ERCP/ES in cases of previous cholecystectomy.

166 dollars with MRC versus 623.25 US dollars or ERCP.

167 rage cost per correct diagnosis using MRC or ERCP as the initial testing strategy for the diagnosis o

168 efit to the length of stay LCBDE+LC has over ERCP+LC.

169 and the potential benefits of LCBDE+LC over ERCP+LC for managing choledocholithiasis, if current tre

170 it a technique that may take precedence over ERCP in ambiguous cases.

171 Overall ERCP success rate was 73 % for DBE and 75 % for SBE (P =

172 opic retrograde cholangio-pancreatiographic (ERCP) exam; even prior images had evidence of common bil

173 grade cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (ERCP) has been disappointing.

174 rograde cholangiography and pancreatography (ERCP) complications.

175 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the management

176 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) is commonly performed in the management of pancrea

177 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

178 scopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) provides therapy for many pancreatic disorders, in

179 were reviewed for the following parameters: ERCP findings, clinical presentation of perforation, dia

180 single-balloon enteroscope (SBE) to perform ERCP in Roux-en-Y patients.

181 s are specialized endoscopes used to perform ERCP, and inherent to their design, a high rate of persi

182 Performing ERCP may be safer in the elderly.

183 onic statin usage is protective against post ERCP pancreatitis, and our findings suggest a potential

184 P), with an incidence of 3.5 to 15%, is post ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

185 Post-ERCP amylase value was found significantly lower in the

186 Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%)

187 Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 18 (6%) of 305 high-risk p

188 Post-ERCP pancreatitis was also less frequent in average-risk

189 Post-ERCP pancreatitis was defined as the presence of new upp

190 ed the efficacy for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory

191 Risk factors for failing SBC and post-ERCP complications were analyzed by multivariate analysi

192 technique in terms of hospital stay and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia.

193 lications of biliary sphincterotomy are post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as acute or delayed hemorrhag

194 The incidence of clinical post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperlipasemia, pain levels, use of a

195 nts with an elevated risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis were assigned to receive 100 mg of rec

196 r two minor risk factors for developing post-ERCP pancreatitis.

197 ct differences in morbidity (especially post-ERCP pancreatitis) and (ii) success of CBD clearance.

198 assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal ind

199 Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly red

200 there was no significance difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis between EST and EPBD.

201 n the rate of adverse events, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (16.1% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.17), and

202 tes of overall complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis.

203 The average cost of managing post-ERCP-related complications among patients with PSC was 2

204 la was correlated with a higher rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (20%, p = 0.020) compared to the other

205 primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal

206 nflicting reports about risk factors of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

207 l indomethacin reduced the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis among patients at high risk of develop

208 lloon dilation reduced the frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis and was determined to be the optimum d

209 gnificantly increased the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with shorter balloon dilation

210 greatest reductions in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients have been demons

211 domethacin in reducing the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients.

212 addition, no significant difference of post-ERCP pancreatitis was found between EST and EPBD groups

213 The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly higher in the 0 s gr

214 The frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly lower in the 30, 60,

215 ients reduced the overall occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis without increasing risk of bleeding.

216 rimary outcome was overall ocurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

217 ere calculated to prevent an episode of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

218 lla is associated with a higher rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

219 proving its safety in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

220 duces the incidence and the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

221 ucing the hospital stay and the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

222 nterventions that can lower the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

223 ly to be effective in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

224 imary endpoint was overall frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

225 ce (C57BL/6) to create a mouse model of post-ERCP pancreatitis; some mice were given intraperitoneal

226 A complementary mouse model of post-ERCP-pancreatitis also induced pancreatic NF-kappaB sign

227 Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 199 (10%) of 1920 patients

228 Overall, post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 47 (4%) of 1297 patients a

229 ntial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a variety of patients.

230 nhibitors might be developed to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients.

231 CP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

232 e in only high-risk patients to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis.

233 e most effective methods for preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis are careful patient selection and iden

234 is found to be effective in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis, this inexpensive agent with limited a

235 The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdomi

236 Postoperative ERCPs were needed 3.1%.

237 nder, history of recurrent pancreatitis, pre-ERCP hyperamylasemia, and difficult or failed cannulatio

238 common bile duct stones during preoperative ERCP in 92.3% (36/39) of the patients.

239 iately selecting candidates for preoperative ERCP and sparing others the need for an endoscopic proce

240 The role of preoperative ERCP in patients with jaundice secondary to pancreatic c

241 rograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCPs) to achieve resolution.

242 02 received no intervention and 317 received ERCP.

243 or the diagnosis of pancreas divisum remains ERCP and sphincterotomy is highly effective in the treat

244 23%-45%) in the sham group underwent repeat ERCP interventions (P = .22).

245 either conservative treatment and selective ERCP +/- ES after 48 hours (control group, 31 patients)

246 pancreatography/endoscopic sphincterotomies (ERCP/ES) in patients who had undergone previous cholecys

247 e for CBD stones by EUS, nine had successful ERCP, one failed ERCP (later treated successfully by sur

248 In summary, ERCP and EUS are important tools for the management of b

249 These findings do not support ERCP and sphincterotomy for these patients.

250 nitial conservative treatment and systematic ERCP +/- ES within 48 hours if obstruction persisted 24

251 The ERCP Quality Network is a unique prospective database of

252 83 patients withdrew consent after the ERCP procedure, thus 1920 patients were included in the

253 s of recurrence for 1, 2, and 5 years in the ERCP group were 5.2%, 7.4%, and 11.1%, compared with 11.

254 Data were collected prior to the ERCP, at the time of the procedure, and 24-72 hours afte

255 tients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP at Taleghani hospital in Tehran between 2008 and 20

256 ctive analysis of 95 consecutive therapeutic ERCP procedures was performed to define and compare succ

257 ding patients with negative ERC, therapeutic ERCP is beneficial and safe for patients present with hi

258 However, therapeutic ERCP has been bolstered by advances such as fully covere

259 ter identify patients in need of therapeutic ERCP.

260 s were included if they received therapeutic ERCP and had naive major duodenal papilla.

261 of choledocholithiasis requiring therapeutic ERCP.

262 n conclusion, MRC has comparable accuracy to ERCP and results in cost savings when used as the initia

263 to an intervention group, that will undergo ERCP with a novel duodenoscope with disposable cap, or t

264 cap, or to a control group who will undergo ERCP with a traditional duodenoscope.

265 ominal pain after cholecystectomy undergoing ERCP with manometry, sphincterotomy vs sham did not redu

266 cm in size and <2 cm in diameter) undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive ballo

267 ible patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (with a compu

268 e medical record of every patient undergoing ERCP 2009-2011 at the Karolinska University Hospital was

269 o administer propofol to patients undergoing ERCP and other endoscopic procedures.

270 trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2

271 tive cohort study of all patients undergoing ERCP at West Virginia University during the years 2016 a

272 l consist of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP procedures for any indication at a high-volume tert

273 on-related incidents) in patients undergoing ERCP procedures under propofol deep sedation.

274 tolerated technique for patients undergoing ERCP procedures, although there is a scarcity of publica

275 ia for a select group of patients undergoing ERCP procedures.

276 spective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP that included low-risk patients and patients with m

277 tal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis.

278 led study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP panc

279 s, 7 asymptomatic carriers who had undergone ERCP, and 1 additional patient who had been hospitalized

280 disobstructed spontaneously and 14 underwent ERCP within 48 hours from the onset of symptoms; impacte

281 nts underwent MRCP and 54 patients underwent ERCP (21 patients underwent both).

282 urs; 3 of the remaining 9 patients underwent ERCP +/- ES and none had impacted stones.

283 Group 1 patients underwent ERCP and clearance of common bile duct stones; group 2 p

284 Sixty-two patients underwent ERCP and Kaffes stent insertion for post-transplant anas

285 A total of 3305 patients underwent ERCP in our hospital between October 2009 and September

286 of RG1068 and repeat MRCP and then underwent ERCP within 30 days; they were followed up for 30 days.

287 cohort study of 4017 patients who underwent ERCP at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania,

288 Of the patients who underwent ERCP for choledocholithiasis, 41.2% underwent early CCY,

289 lized with choledocholithiasis who underwent ERCP.

290 The accuracy of MRCP was evaluated using ERCP as the standard.

291 gnosis, and, thus, the risks associated with ERCP can be avoided.

292 lication; however, morbidity associated with ERCP remains significant.

293 rtality and morbidity burden associated with ERCP-related infectious outbreaks, the results of this s

294 when this imagining method is combined with ERCP and additional tests.

295 standard results, (d) prospective study with ERCP or MRCP performed after subject recruitment into th

296 for patients treated with LCBDE+LC than with ERCP+LC (3.5 vs 4.0 days; P < .001).

297 ed with LCBDE+LC than for those treated with ERCP+LC (3.0 vs 4.0 days; P < .001).

298 ur analysis, 36048 (96.9%) were treated with ERCP+LC and 1159 (3.1%) were treated with LCBDE+LC.

299 The mean (SD) age of patients treated with ERCP+LC was 50.7 (21.1) years and was 51.9 (20.9) years

300 Consequently, in recent years, ERCP has been associated with infection transmission, le