Use of ERCP in the United States over the past decade

Abstract

Background and study aims With newer imaging modalities, indications for use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have changed in the last decade. Despite advances in ERCP, paucity in recent literature regarding utilization and outcomes of ERCP exists. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the inpatient use of ERCP, outcomes, and most common indications.

Patients and methods Retrospective-cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2007–2016. All patients with ICD9–10CM procedural codes for ERCP were included. The primary outcome was the use of ERCP. Secondary outcomes included determining procedural specifics (stenting, sphincterotomy and dilation), complications (post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP], bile duct perforation), hospital length of stay, total hospital costs and charges. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders.

Results A total of 1,606,850 patients underwent inpatient ERCP. The mean age was 59 years (60 % female). The total number of ERCPs increased over the last decade. Patients undergoing ERCP in 2016 had greater odds of undergoing bile duct stent placement, pancreatic duct (PD) stenting, biliary dilation, pancreatic sphincterotomy, PEP and biliary perforation. Inpatient mortality decreased. Hospital charges increased, while length of stay (LOS) decreased.

Conclusions The number of ERCPs increased in the past decade. Odds of therapeutic interventions and complications increased. The most common principal diagnoses were choledocholithiasis and gallstone-related AP. Hence, physicians must be aware to promptly diagnose and treat complications. These findings may reflect the increased case complexity and fact that ERCP continues to evolve into an increasingly interventional tool, contrasting from its former role as a predominantly diagnostic and gallstone extraction tool.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 26. September 2019

Angenommen: 12. Februar 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. Mai 2020

• References

• 1 McCune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H. Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of vater: a preliminary report. Annals of surgery 1968; 167: 752-756
• 2 Cotton PB. Cannulation of the papilla of Vater by endoscopy and retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Gut 1972; 13: 1014-1025
• 3 Kawai K, Akasaka Y, Murakami K. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy of the ampulla of Vater. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1974; 20: 148-151
• 4 Rabinov KR, Simon M. Peroral cannulation of the ampulla of Vater for direct cholangiography and pancreatography. Preliminary report of a new method. Radiology 1965; 85: 693-697
• 5 Ahmed M, Kanotra R, Savani GT. et al. Utilization trends in inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): A cross-sectional US experience. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E261-271
• 6 Mazen JM, Yoon EJ, Saadi A. et al. Trends in the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the United States. The American journal of gastroenterology 2007; 102: 966-975
• 7 Huang RJ, Thosani NC, Barakat MT. et al. Evolution in the utilization of biliary interventions in the United States: results of a nationwide longitudinal study from 1998 to 2013. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2017; 86: 319-326.e315
• 8 Yachimski PS, Ross A. The Future of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 338-344
• 9 Walsh CM. In-training gastrointestinal endoscopy competency assessment tools: Types of tools, validation and impact. Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology 2016; 30: 357-374
• 10 Jorgensen J, Kubiliun N, Law JK. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): core curriculum. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2016; 83: 279-289
• 11 Elta GH, Jorgensen J, Coyle WJ. Training in interventional endoscopy: current and future state. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: 488-490
• 12 Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H. et al. Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Medical care 2013; 51: 1040-1047
• 13 Dave-Verma H, Moore S, Singh A. et al. Computed tomographic enterography and enteroclysis: pearls and pitfalls. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2008; 37: 279-287
• 14 Shahidi N, Ou G, Telford J. et al. When trainees reach competency in performing ERCP: a systematic review. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2015; 81: 1337-1342
• 15 Eisen GM, Baron TH, Dominitz JA. et al. Methods of granting hospital privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2002; 55: 780-783
• 16 Wani S, Keswani RN, Petersen B. et al. Training in EUS and ERCP: standardizing methods to assess competence. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2018; 87: 1371-1382
• 17 Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. Journal of clinical epidemiology 1992; 45: 613-619
• 18 Kozarek RA. The future of ERCP. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E272-E274
• 19 Moffatt DC, Yu BN, Yie W. et al. Trends in utilization of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP and cholecystectomy over the past 25 years: a population-based study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2014; 79: 615-622
• 20 Coelho-Prabhu N, Shah ND, Van Houten H. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10-year population-based cohort. BMJ Open 2013; 3
• 21 Bilal M, Kline KT, Trieu JA. et al. Trends in same-admission cholecystectomy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for acute gallstone pancreatitis: A nationwide analysis across a decade. Pancreatology : official journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) 2019; 19: 524-530
• 22 Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S. et al. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2019; 89: 1075-1105.e1015
• 23 Network OPaT. National Data. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/view-data-reports/national-data/# [Accessed June 2, 2019]
• 24 Barritt AS, Miller CB, Hayashi PH. et al. Effect of ERCP utilization and biliary complications on post-liver-transplantation mortality and graft survival. Digestive diseases and sciences 2010; 55: 3602-3609
• 25 Cheon YK, Cho KB, Watkins JL. et al. Frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis correlated with extent of pancreatic ductal opacification. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2007; 65: 385-393
• 26 Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2001; 54: 425-434
• 27 Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F. et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. The American journal of gastroenterology 2009; 104: 31-40
• 28 Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Bulling D. et al. Analysis of the risk factors associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques: preliminary results of a prospective study, with emphasis on the reduced risk of acute pancreatitis with low-dose anticoagulation treatment. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 10-19
• 29 Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. The American journal of gastroenterology 2006; 101: 139-147
• 30 Freeman ML. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: a review. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 288-297
• 31 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1998; 48: 1-10
• 32 Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A. et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. The American journal of gastroenterology 2001; 96: 417-423
• 33 Howard TJ, Tan T, Lehman GA. et al. Classification and management of perforations complicating endoscopic sphincterotomy. Surgery 1999; 126: 658-663 ; discussion 664-655
• 34 Klabunde CN, Warren JL, Legler JM. Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Medical care 2002; 40: Iv-26-35
• 35 Cooper GS, Chak A, Lloyd LE. et al. The accuracy of diagnosis and procedural codes for patients with upper GI hemorrhage. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2000; 51: 423-426
• 36 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Quality indicators for ERCP. https://www.asge.org/docs/default-source/education/practice_guidelines/doc-427772e8-226f-4d33-96b3-cd26f1ce95ff.pdf?sfvrsn=6 [Accessed June 2, 2019]