ERCP practice beyond the training period – bridging the gap between guidelines and real-life practice: a single operator experience of 679 procedures

Open access

Abstract

Background. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has evolved significantly in recent years. The increase in complexity and range of applications has not been adequately reflected in an improvement of training methods for ERCP, with many endoscopists failing to meet required performance standards during their training period and limited available data on their performance immediately after completing training. We aimed to analyze the performance of an independent operator from a developing country after the completion of formal training with regard to procedure and patient-related outcomes.

Methods. We conducted an observational study of ERCPs performed by a young endoscopist from a referral center. Data about the procedure, cannulation technique (including use of precut), trainee involvement and procedure-related outcomes was retrieved and analyzed from a prospectively maintained database on quality in ERCP (the QUASIE initiative).

Results. Data from 679 consecutive ERCPs conducted or supervised by one endoscopist with < 200 independent procedures prior to the study period were included in the final analysis. Cannulation rates significantly improved over time, from 90% to 96% (p = 0.016). Use of precut techniques changed significantly over time, with an initial increase followed by a subsequent decrease as overall cannulation rates improved. Trainee involvement was significantly associated with prolonged cannulation times (p = 0.003) and use of precut (p = 0.001), but did not impact on technical success or patient safety.

Conclusions. Independent practice of ERCP after the training period is characterized by ongoing changes in technique, especially with regard to cannulation and use of precut, showing significant improvements in performance over time.

1. SHAHIDI N, OU G, TELFORD J, ENNS R. When trainees reach competency in performing ERCP: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1337-42. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.054. Epub 2015 Apr 1.

2. COTTON PB. Are low-volume ERCPists a problem in the United States? A plea to examine and improve ERCP practice-NOW.Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(1):161-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1233.

3. SIIKI A, TAMMINEN A, TOMMINEN T, KUUSANMÄKI P. ERCP procedures in a Finnish community hospital: a retrospective analysis of 1207 cases. Scand J Surg. 2012;101(1):45-50.

4. 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

5. ASGE STANDARDS OF PRACTICE COMMITTEE, FAULX AL, LIGHTDALE JR, ACOSTA RD et al. Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy.Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(2):273-281. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.10.036.

6. 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-pancreatograph practice. Gut. 2007;56(6):821-9. Epub 2006 Dec 4.

7. COTE 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.

8. TALUKDAR R, NAGESHWAR REDDY D. ERCP in developing countries: the way forward. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84(4):667-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.04.037.

9. HU LH, XIN L, LIAO Z, et al. ERCP development in the largest developing country: a national survey from China in 2013. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:659-66.

10. TUMI A, MAGADMI M, ELFAGEIH S et al. ERCP in a cohort of 759 cases: A 6-year experience of a single tertiary centre in Libya. J Gastroenterol. 2015;16(1):25-8.

11. EKKELENKAMP VE, KOCH AD, RAUWS EA, BORSBOOM GJ, DE MAN RA, KUIPERS EJ. Competence development in ERCP: the learning curve of novice trainees. Endoscopy. 2014;46(11):949-55.

12. SHAHIDI N, OU G, TELFORD J, ENNS R. When trainees reach competency in performing ERCP: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1337-42.

13. SCHUTZ SM, ABBOTT RM. Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: A new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 51: 535–539.

14. VOIOSU T, BENGUS A, VOIOSU A et al. Trainee caseload correlates with ERCP success rates but not with procedure-related complications: results from a prospective study (the QUASIE cohort). Endosc Int Open. 2016;4(4):E409-14.

17. COTTON PB, LEHMAN G, VENNES J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 37: 383–393

18. HAREWOOD GC, BARON TH. An assessment of the learning curve for precut biliary sphincterotomy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1708–1712.

19. TESTONI PA, MARIANI A, AABAKKEN L et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.Endoscopy. 2016;48(7):657-83.

20. LOPES L, DINIS-RIBEIRO M, ROLANDA C. Early precut fistulotomy for biliary access: time to change the paradigm of "the later, the better"?. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(4):634-41.

21. NAVANEETHAN U, KONJETI R, VENKATESH PG, et al. Early precut sphincterotomy and the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related complications: An updated meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 6: 200–208.

22. VERMA D, GOSTOUT CJ, PETERSEN BT et al. Establishing a true assessment of endoscopic competence in ERCP during training and beyond: a single-operator learning curve for deep biliary cannulation in patients with native papillary anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(3):394-400.

23. VITALE GC, ZAVALETA CM, VITALE DS, et al. Training surgeons in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 2006;20: 149-52.

24. MOON HS, CHOI EK, SEO JH et al. Education and Training Guidelines for the Board of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2017;50(4):345-356.

25. BATAGA S, TANTAU M, CRISTIAN G et al. ERCP in Romania in 2006; a National Programme seems mandatory. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2007; 16(4):431-5.

26. VOIOSU T, VOIOSU A, BENGUS A et al. Trainee involvement increases precut rates and delays access to the common bile duct without an increase in procedure-related adverse events: a brave new world of ERCP training? Rom J Intern Med.2018;56:55-61.

27. FROST JW, KURUP A, SHETTY S, FISHER N. Does the presence of a trainee compromise success of biliary cannulation at ERCP? Endosc Int Open 2017; 5(7):E559-E562.

28. RIESCO-LÓPEZ JM, VÁZQUEZ-ROMERO M, RIZO-PASCUAL JM et al. Efficacy and safety of ERCP in a low-volume hospital.Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2013;105(2):68-73.

29. NALANKILLI K, KANNUTHURAI S, MOSS A. A modern approach to ERCP: maintaining efficacy while optimising safety. Dig Endosc. 2016;28 Suppl 1:70-6.

30. COTTON PB. It’s not the precut; it's the why done and who by. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(5):1114; author reply 1114. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.02.028.

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 117 117 110
PDF Downloads 85 85 79