Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in elderly patients: Is age just a number or something more?

Table 3 Factors associated with post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis development

	Pancreatitis development, n (%)	P value, univariate (χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate)	P value, multivariate binary logistic regression analysis	Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis, objective risk (95%CI)
Elderly patients	11/910 (1.4)	0.129
Non-elderly patients	53/2245 (2.4)
Sex		0.135	0.114	1.498 (0.907-2.475)
Male	26/1541 (1.7)
Female	40/1606 (2.5)
ASA		0.183
1-2	49/2151 (2.3)
3-4	17/996 (1.7)
Normal common bile duct		0.023	0.037	1.808 (1.091-1.959)
Yes	10/210 (4.8)
No	54/2711 (2.0)
Attempts in order to cannulate		< 0.001	0.018	2.015 (1.129-3.596)
< 5	12/1296 (0.9)
≥ 5	54/1744 (3.1)
Needle knife use		< 0.001	0.018	2.381 (1.159-4.891)
Yes	41/1136 (3.6)
No	25/1904 (1.3)
Successful cannulation		0.708
Yes	64/2921 (2.2)
No	2/119 (1.7)
Common bile duct stenting		0.239
Yes	27/1034 (2.6)
No	39/2006 (1.9)
Catheterization of the pancreatic duct		0.026	0.280	1.320 (0.797-2186)
Yes	32/1100 (2.9)
No	34/2047 (1.7)
Periampulary diverticula		0.876
Yes	12/592 (2.0)
No	54/2448 (2.2)

ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologists; CI: Confidence interval.