Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training in the United Kingdom: A critical review

[Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea]

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires abundant clinical experience and endoscopic skills, and can lead to various complications, some of which may progress to life-threatening conditions. With expanding indications and technological advancements, ERCP is widely utilized, enhancing procedural accessibility. However, without proper quality management, the procedure can pose significant risks. Quality management in ERCP is essential to ensure safe and successful procedures and meet societal demands for improved healthcare competitiveness. To address these concerns, the Korean Society of Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy has developed a Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator reflecting domestic medical environments and realities. Initially, based on a review of foreign ERCP quality indicators and related literatures, key questions were formulated for five pre-procedural items, three intra-procedural items, and four post-procedural items. Descriptions and recommendations for each item were selected through peer evaluation. The developed Korean-specific ERCP quality indicator was reviewed by external experts based on the latest evidence and consensus in this fields. This Korean-specific indicator is expected to significantly contribute to improving ERCP quality in Korea, as it is tailored to local needs.

Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a procedure that requires significant experiences and skills and has various procedure-related complications, some of which can be severe and even result in the death of patients. Expanding ERCP availability has the advantage of increasing accessibility for patients. However, ERCP poses a substantial risk if performed without proper quality management. ERCP quality management is essential for both ensuring safe and successful procedures and meeting the social demands for enhanced healthcare competitiveness and quality assurance. To address these concerns, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association established a task force to develop ERCP quality indicators (QIs) tailored to the Korean medical environment. Key questions for five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, and four post-procedure measures were formulated based on a literature search related to ERCP QIs and a comprehensive clinical review conducted by experts. The statements and recommendations regarding each QI item were selected through peer review. The developed ERCP QIs were reviewed by external experts based on the latest available evidence at the time of development. These domestically tailored ERCP QIs are expected to contribute considerably to improving ERCP quality in Korea.

Efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide insufflation versus air insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Ambient air is the most commonly used gas for insufflation in endoscopic procedures worldwide. However, prolonged absorption of air during endoscopic examinations may cause pain and abdominal distension. Carbon dioxide insufflation (CO ₂ i) has been increasingly used as an alternative to ambient air insufflation (AAi) in many endoscopic procedures due to its fast diffusion properties and less abdominal distention and pain. For endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), use of CO ₂ for insufflation is adequate because this procedure is complex and prolonged. Some randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO ₂ as an insufflation method during ERCP but presented conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis with only RCTs evaluated the efficacy and safety of CO ₂ i versus AAi during ERCP. Methods  A literature search was performed using online databases with no restriction regarding idiom or year of publication. Data were extracted by two authors according to a predefined data extraction form. Outcomes evaluated were abdominal pain and distension, complications, procedure duration, and CO ₂ levels. Results  Eight studies (919 patients) were included. Significant results favoring CO ₂ i were less abdominal distension after 1 h (MD: -1.41 [-1.81; -1.0], 95 % CI, I² = 15 %, P  < 0.00001) and less abdominal pain after 1 h (MD: -23.80 [-27.50; -20.10], 95 %CI, I² = 9 %, P  < 0.00001) and after 6 h (MD: -7.00 [-8.66; -5.33]; 95 % CI, I² = 0 %, P  < 0.00001). Conclusion  Use of CO ₂ i instead of AAi during ERCP is safe and associated with less abdominal distension and pain after the procedure.

Quality in endoscopy training-the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography case

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the most advanced therapeutic procedures in gastrointestinal endoscopy. It is highly operator-dependent procedure requiring specific, knowledge-based training in order to achieve competence. Strategies for assessing competency of trainees and those in practice include numbers of procedures performed, and subjective or objective assessment by a mentor or self-assessment by the trainee. However, it is still not clear how to measure the quality in (ERCP) training in an objective and reproducible way, so far. Thus, in this article, we will discuss issues related to training in ERCP and provide experience based discussion on how to best approach and master this complex and risky procedure.

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiography laparoscopic cholecystectomy: challenging but safe

Interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy was found to be safe and associated with a low rate of perioperative complications.

Background and Objectives:

Up to 19% of patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) have common bile duct stones and may require endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) before LC. The risk of complications of LC after ERCP is higher, and the optimal interval between ERCP and LC is disputed. In our unit, LC is performed approximately 6 weeks after ERCP. This study aims to compare outcomes between subsets of patients undergoing LC with or without prior ERCP.

Methods:

All patients undergoing ERCP and elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) over a 1-year period were included. Outcome measures included ERCP outcomes, duration of surgery, intraoperative findings, and postoperative outcomes. Two groups of patients were compared: LC after ERCP and ELC.

Results:

The study included 190 ELC patients and 43 patients with LC after ERCP (ERCP-LC) (December 2008 to December 2009). At ERCP, 25 patients (58%) had ductal stones. The post-ERCP complication rate was 5%. The median time to LC was 42 days, and 6 patients (14%) were readmitted before LC. There were more severe adhesions and longer median operating times in the ERCP-LC group (75 minutes for ELC vs 110 minutes for ERCP-LC, P = .013). We found no significant differences in rates of conversion to open surgery, postoperative complications, lengths of stay, and readmission rates.

Conclusion:

Interval LC after ERCP is a more technically challenging procedure but is associated with a low rate of complications. Although there is emerging evidence that early LC after ERCP is feasible, our study shows that our current practice of delaying LC by approximately 6 weeks is safe.

Minimally invasive treatment of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis: The point of view of the surgical endoscopist

The rate of choledocholithiasis in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis is estimated to be approximately 10%-33%, depending on the patient’s age. Development of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Laparoscopic Surgery and improvement of diagnostic procedures have influenced new approaches to the management of common bile duct stones in association with gallstones. At present available minimally-invasive treatments of cholecysto-choledocal lithiasis include: single-stage laparoscopic treatment, perioperative endoscopic treatment and endoscopic treatment alone. Published data evidence that, associated endoscopic-laparoscopic approach necessitates increased number of procedures per patient while single-stage laparoscopic treatment is associated with a shorter hospital stay. However, current data does not suggest clear superiority of any one approach with regard to success, mortality, morbidity and cost-effectiveness. Considering the variety of therapeutic options available for management, a critical appraisal and decision-making is required. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography/EST should be adopted on a selective basis, i.e., in patients with acute obstructive suppurative cholangitis, severe biliary pancreatitis, ampullary stone impaction or severe comorbidity. In a setting where all facilities are available, decision in the selection of the therapeutic option depends on the patients, the number and size of choledocholithiasis stones, the anatomy of the cystic duct and common bile duct, the surgical history of patients and local expertise.

Carbon dioxide insufflation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A meta-analysis and systematic review

AIM

To assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Science Citation Index Expanded, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and references in relevant publications were searched up to December 2011 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CO(2) insufflation with air insufflation during ERCP. The trials were included in the review irrespective of sample size, publication status, or language. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent authors. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.1.6. A random-effects model was used to analyze various outcomes. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed if necessary.

RESULTS

Seven double-blind RCTs involving a total of 818 patients were identified that compared CO(2) insufflation (n = 404) with air insufflation (n = 401) during ERCP. There were a total of 13 post-randomization dropouts in four RCTs. Six RCTs had a high risk of bias and one had a low risk of bias. None of the RCTs reported any severe gas-related adverse events in either group. A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (n = 459) indicated that patients in the CO(2) insufflation group had less post-ERCP abdominal pain and distension for at least 1 h compared with patients in the air insufflation group. There were no significant differences in mild cardiopulmonary complications [risk ratio (RR) = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.07-2.66, P = 0.36], cardiopulmonary (e.g., blood CO(2) level) changes [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.97, 95% CI: -2.58-0.63, P = 0.23], cost analysis (mean difference = 3.14, 95% CI: -14.57-20.85, P = 0.73), and total procedure time (SMD = -0.05, 95% CI: -0.26-0.17, P = 0.67) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

CO(2) insufflation during ERCP appears to be safe and reduces post-ERCP abdominal pain and discomfort.