Abstract
Background
A number of factors may result in lower than expected success rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed by overseas experts during live demonstrations (LDs). Stratifying the degree of ERCP difficulty may help in the assessment of procedure outcomes, but no prior reports have done so. This study aimed to compare the success rate and complications of ERCP between procedures performed in live demonstrations and for matched control subjects.
Methods
From 2004 to 2011, a total of 82 patients who underwent ERCP during live demonstrations at the Endoscopy Unit of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital were reviewed. The control for each patient was a patient admitted to the same ERCP unit with matched indications at the time closest to the demonstration course who had matching gender and techniques in therapeutic interventions during ERCP. The success rates and complications between the two groups were compared based on the grading scale for the degree of difficulty according to Cotton and colleagues.
Results
For standard ERCP cases (levels 1–2), the success rate, complication rate, and duration of the procedure (DOP) did not differ significantly. In contrast, the success rate for complex ERCPs (levels 3–4) performed during LD was significantly lower (73% vs. 90%; P = 0.006). The complication rates and DOP were not significantly different (P = 0.31 and 0.23, respectively). The overall success rate was significantly lower for LD procedures than for control procedures (81% vs. 91%; P = 0.02).
Conclusions
In this series, the standard ERCP performed during LD was associated with success and complication rates similar to those for the control subjects. Complex ERCP cases were, however, associated with lower success rates than those for the control subjects. A high proportion of complex ERCP cases during live demonstration can influence the overall success rate of ERCPs performed by overseas experts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cotton PB (2000) Live endoscopy demonstrations are great, but…. Gastrointest Endosc 51:627–629
Deviere J, Ponchon T, Beilenhoff U, Neuhaus H, Costamagna G, Schmit A, Kruse A, Spicak J, Nowak A (2003) Recommendations of the ESGE workshop on ethical-legal issues concerning live demonstrations in digestive endoscopy. Endoscopy 35:765–767
Carr-Locke D, Gostout C, Van Dam J (2001) A guideline for live endoscopy courses: an ASGE white paper. Gastrointest Endosc 53:685–688
Kruse A, Beilenhoff U, Axon AT (2003) ESGE/ESGENA guideline for live demonstration courses. Endoscopy 35:781–784
Schmit A, Lazaraki G, Hittelet A, Cremer M, Le Moine O, Devière J (2005) Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography during live endoscopy workshop demonstrations. Endoscopy 37:695–699
Liao Z, Li ZS, Leung JW, Zhang X, Zhang ST, Ji M, Fan ZN, Zhi FC, Li YM, Chen XX, Lu L, Ren X, Jia GF, Huang LY, Lv NH, Xie WF, Ge ZZ, Chao WS, China ERCP live demonstration and education study group (2009) How safe and successful are live demonstrations of therapeutic ERCP? A large multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 104:47–52
Freeman ML (2003) Adverse outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 13:775–798
Fisher L, Fisher A, Thomson A (2006) Cardiopulmonary complications of ERCP in older patients. Gastrointest Endosc 63:948–955
Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R (2007) Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 102:1781–1788
Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J, Romagnuolo J (2009) Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 70:80–88
Baron TH, Petersen BH, Mergener K, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, Hoffman B, Jacobson BC, Petrini JL, Safdi MA, Faigel DO, Pike IM (2006) Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 63(4 Suppl):S29–S34
Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J, Vargo J, Baron T, Tarnasky P, Schutz S, Jacobson B, Bott C, Petersen B (2011) Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 73:868–874
Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, Dorsher PJ, Moore JP, Fennerty MB, Ryan ME, Shaw MJ, Lande JD, Pheley AM (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335:909–919
Acknowledgments
We specially thank the following participants in the live demonstrations. Local faculty: S. Panpimanmas, S. Churnratanakul, B. Ovartlarnporn, T. Ratanachu-Ek, Y. Sattawatthamrong, T. Akaraviputh, A. Janchai, N. Anukulkarnkulsol, B. Pornthisarn, A. Sangchan, P. Pisespongsa, S. Attasaranya, T. Kitiyakara, N. Pausawasdi, and C. Osangthamnont; Chulalongkorn University GI fellows and the Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (TAGE). Foreign faculty: J. M. Scheiman, J. Deviere, G. A. Lehman, N. Soehendra, J. Van Dam, D. N. Reddy, P. Fockens, R. Ponnudurai, H. Yamamoto, C. J. L. Khor, K. Yasuda, S. Shimizu, B. Devereaux, M. Giovannini, H. Neuhaus, S. Y. Song, E. Ong, T. Itoi, D. W. Seo, G. B. Haber, S. K. Lo, and J. H. Moon.
Disclosures
Wiriyaporn Ridtitid, Rungsun Rerknimitr, Sombat Treeprasertsuk, Pradermchai Kongkam, Christopher J. L. Khor, and Pinit Kullavanijaya have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ridtitid, W., Rerknimitr, R., Treeprasertsuk, S. et al. Outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during live endoscopy demonstrations. Surg Endosc 26, 1931–1938 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2130-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-2130-2