A prospective study on quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): trend in Italy from the REQUEST study

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure with a relatively high rate of adverse events. Data on training of operators and fulfillment of quality indicators in Italy are scarce. The goal of this study was to assess the overall quality of ERCP in Italy compared to international standards.

Patients and methods This was a prospective, observational study from different Italian centers performing ERCP. Operators answered a questionnaire, then recorded data on ERCPs over a 1-to 3-month period.

Results Nineteen Italian centers participated in the study. The most common concern of operators about training was the lack of structured programs. Seven/19 centers routinely used conscious sedation for ERCP. Forty-one experienced operators and 21 trainees performed 766 ERCPs: a successful deep biliary cannulation in native-papilla patients was achieved in 95.1 % of cases; the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 5.4 % in native-papilla patients; cholangitis rate was 1.0 %; bleeding and perforation occurred in 2.7 % and 0.4 % of the patients, respectively.

Conclusions This study revealed that, overall, ERCP is performed in the participating Italian centers meeting good quality standards, but structured training and sedation practice are still subpar. The bleeding and perforation rate slightly exceeded the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy indicator targets but they are comparable to the reported rates from other international surveys.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 18. März 2021

Angenommen: 07. Juni 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
16. September 2021

• References

• 1 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S. et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
• 2 Salminen P, Laine S, Gullichsen R. Severe and fatal complications after ERCP: analysis of 2555 procedures in a single experienced center. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 1965-1970
• 3 Colton JB, Curran CC. Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 457-467
• 4 Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J. et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 80-88
• 5 Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 32-47
• 6 Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K. et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S29-S34
• 7 Adler DG, Lieb 2nd JG , Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 54-66
• 8 Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L. et al. Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 1448-1460
• 9 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography practice. Gut 2007; 56: 821-829
• 10 Ekkelenkamp VE, de Man RA, Ter Borg F. Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 503-507
• 11 Coté GA, Keswani RN, Jackson T. et al. Individual and practice differences among physicians who perform ERCP at varying frequency: a national survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 65-73.e12
• 12 Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F. et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 625-630
• 13 Kapral C, Mühlberger A, Wewalka F. et al. Quality assessment of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a running nationwide Austrian benchmarking project after 5 years of implementation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1447-1454
• 14 Mariani A, Segato S, Anderloni A. et al. Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance in an Italian regional database study. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 978-984
• 15 Keswani RN, Qumseya BJ, O'Dwyer LC. et al. Association between endoscopist and center endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volume with procedure success and adverse outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 15: 1866-1875
• 16 Varadarajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM. et al. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 338-347
• 17 Cotton PB. Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: S283-S290
• 18 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
• 19 Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E. et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 143-149
• 20 Torun S, Parlak E, Yıldız H. et al. Assessment of the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography grading system: A prospective study from a tertiary care center. Turk J Gastroenterol 2016; 27: 187-191
• 21 Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS. et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 983-989
• 22 Faulx AL, Lightdale JR. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 273-281
• 23 Cotton PB. ASGE guidelines for ERCP competence. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 1190
• 24 Wani S, Han S, Simon V. et al. Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1160-1168.e9
• 25 Wani S, Keswani RN, Han S. et al. Competence in endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, from training through independent practice. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 1483-1494.e7
• 26 Jovanovic I, Mönkemüller K. Quality in endoscopy training-the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography case. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6: 264