The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Early ERCP and Papillotomy Compared with Conservative Treatment for Acute Biliary Pancreatitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and papillotomy in the treatment of patients who have acute biliary pancreatitis without obstructive jaundice is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter study in which 126 patients were randomly assigned to early ERCP (within 72 hours after the onset of symptoms) and endoscopic papillotomy for the removal of stones in the common bile duct, when appropriate, and 112 patients were assigned to conservative treatment. In the conservative-treatment group, ERCP was performed within three weeks if signs of biliary obstruction or sepsis developed. Overall mortality, mortality due to pancreatitis, and complications were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Early ERCP was successful in 121 of the 126 patients in the invasive-treatment group. Endoscopic papillotomy was performed to remove bile-duct stones in 58 patients; stones were successfully extracted in 57. ERCP was performed in 22 of the 112 patients in the conservative-treatment group; papillotomy for stone removal was successful in 13 patients. Fourteen patients in the invasive-treatment group and 7 in the conservative-treatment group died within three months (P=0.10); 10 patients in the invasive-treatment group and 4 in the conservative-treatment group died from acute biliary pancreatis (P=0.16). The overall rate of complications was similar in the two groups, but patients in the invasive-treatment group had more severe complications. Respiratory failure was more frequent in the invasive-treatment group, and jaundice was more frequent in the conservative-treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute biliary pancreatis but without obstructive jaundice, early ERCP and sphincterotomy were not beneficial.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis
Tenner, S., Baillie, J., DeWitt, J., & Vege, S. S. (2013) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218 · Cited by 2,327
Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis
Banks, P. A., Freeman, M. L., & the Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00856.x · Cited by 2,050
UK guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis
(2005) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2004.057026 · Cited by 940
IAP Guidelines for the Surgical Management of Acute Pancreatitis
Uhl, W. H., Warshaw, A. L., IMRIE, C. W., Bassi, C., McKay, C. J., Lankisch, P. G., Carter, R., Magno, E. D., Banks, P. A., Whitcomb, D. C., et al. (2002) · Pancreatology · doi:10.1159/000071269 · Cited by 773
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones
(2016) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.03.005 · Cited by 576
Metadata
- Authors
- Fölsch, U. R., Nitsche, R., Lüdtke, R., Hilgers, R. A., & Creutzfeldt, W.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 1997-01-23
- Volume
- 336
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 237-242
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2312369705
- Cited by
- 612
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 31.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Early ERCP and Papillotomy Compared with Conservative Treatment for Acute Biliary Pancreatitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199701233360401
- The paper
- Fölsch, U. R., Nitsche, R., Lüdtke, R., Hilgers, R. A., & Creutzfeldt, W. (1997). Early ERCP and Papillotomy Compared with Conservative Treatment for Acute Biliary Pancreatitis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199701233360401
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.