Impact of changing our cannulation method on the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after pancreatic guidewire placement

Table 1 Patient characteristics and endoscopic procedures used in pancreatic guidewire placement

	Total (n = 142)	Cannulation method
		CI using a single-lumen catheter (n = 104)	WGC using a double-lumen catheter (n = 38)	P value
Mean age (mean ± SD)	72.7 (11.5)	68.5 (10.9)	75.3 (13.2)
Male sex (%)	71 (50)	48 (46)	23 (61)	0.18
Periampullary diverticulum (%)	28 (20)	21 (20)	7 (18)	1.00
Diagnosis (%)
Choledocholithiasis	55 (39)	33 (32)	22 (58)	0.01
Biliary cancer	33 (23)	25 (24)	8 (21)	0.90
Pancreatic cancer	24 (17)	20 (19)	4 (11)	0.33
Ampullary cancer	4 (2.8)	4 (3.8)	0 (0)	0.57
ERCP maneuvers (%)
Biliary sphincterotomy	69 (49)	50 (48)	19 (50)	0.99
Transpancreatic sphincterotomy	2 (1.4)	1 (0.96)	1 (2.6)	0.87
Papillary ballon dilatation	4 (2.8)	4 (4)	0 (0)	0.63
Bile duct stone removal	20 (14)	14 (13)	6 (16)	0.91
Biliary stenting	55 (39)	36 (35)	19 (50)	0.14
Pancreatic stenting	9 (6.3)	8 (7.7)	1 (2.6)	0.50

ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; CI: Contrast injection; WGC: Wire-guided cannulation.