Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project

Background and study aim: In a quality assessment project for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), initiated in 2006 by the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, benchmark data were collected on a voluntary basis. Results from the individual participating centers, both academic and community-based, were compared with pooled benchmark data, with the intention that individual problems should be identified and corrected in order to improve patient care in Austria. Success and complication rates in nonselected patients were evaluated, especially with regard to case volume.

Methods: In Austria, with a population of 8 million, 140 sites are registered for ERCP, and it is estimated that up to 15 000 procedures are done annually. Of these sites, 28 participated in the “Benchmarking ERCP” project during the first year, reporting on 3132 procedures, or 22 % of the total number.

Results: The overall complication rate in nonselected patients was 12.6 %, consisting of post-ERCP pancreatitis (5.1 %), bleeding (3.7 %), cholangitis (1.9 %), cardiopulmonary complications (0.9 %), and perforation (0.5 %); procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. The overall therapeutic and diagnostic target was achieved in 84.8 %. High case volume (endoscopists performing > 50 vs. < 50 ERCPs per year; 21 vs. 68 endoscopists) was associated with significantly higher success (86.9 % vs. 80.3 %, P < 0.001) and lower overall complication rates (10.2 % vs. 13.6 %, P = 0.007); significance was not reached for all subgroups of complications.

Conclusion: Success and complication rates for ERCP in Austria are comparable to those reported elsewhere. In our study, endoscopists with a case volume exceeding 50 ERCPs per year had higher success and lower overall complication rates.

References

• 1 Freeman M L. Toward improving outcomes of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 96-102
• 2 Torsello G. How competent are Germany’s carotid surgeons? Evaluation after 15 000 interventions. (In German).  MMW Fortschr Med. 1999;  141 28-32
• 3 Richardson J D. Morbidity and mortality in vascular surgery: the Kentucky experience with a statewide database.  Am Surg. 2006;  72 1109-1111; discussion 1126 – 1148
• 4 Amarasinghan R, Pronovost P J, Diener-West M. et al . Measuring clinical information technology in the ICU setting: application in a quality improvement collaborative.  J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;  14 288-294
• 5 Renner F, Knoflach P, Aigner F. et al . Qualitätssicherung im Bereich der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie. Empfehlungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie.  Z Gastroenterol. 2000;  38 XXIV-XXXI
• 6 O’Mahony S, Naylor G, Axon A. Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2000;  32 483-488
• 7 Johanson J F, Cooper G, Eisen G M. et al . Quality assessment of ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 165-169
• 8 Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A. et al . Setting up a quality assurance program in endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 701-707
• 9 Baron T, Petersen B, Mergener K. et al . Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 892-897
• 10 Faigel D, Pike I, Baron T. et al . Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 866-872
• 11 Williams E J, 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
• 12 Lammert F, Neubrand M W, Bittner R. et al . S3-Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of gallstones. German Society for Digestive and Metabolic Diseases and German Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. AWMF Registry 021/008.  Z Gastroenterol. 2007;  45 971-1001
• 13 Freeman M L, Nelson D B, Sherman S. et al . Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 909-918
• 14 Freeman M L, Guda N M. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 845-864
• 15 Vandervoort J, Soedikno R M, Tham T C. et al . Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 652-656
• 16 Guda N M, Freeman M L. 30 years of ERCP and still the same problems?.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 833-835
• 17 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al . Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;  102 1781-1788. Epub 2007 May 17
• 18 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al . Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 1-10
• 19 Masci E, Toti A, Mariani S. et al . Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;  96 417-423
• 20 Cotton P B. ERCP is most dangerous for people who need it least.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 535-536
• 21 Testoni P A. Why the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis varies considerably. Factors affecting the diagnosis and the incidence of this complication.  JOP. 2002;  3 195-201
• 22 Tanner A R. ERCP: present practice in a single region.  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1996;  8 145-148
• 23 Freeman M L. Adverse outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;  13 775-798
• 24 Weiss W. Übersicht der Diagnose- und Therapiemöglichkeiten gastroenterologischer Einrichtungen in Spitälern und Ordinationen niedergelassener Fachärzte (Internisten, Chirurgen, gastroenterologische Spezialpraxen) in Österreich. In: ÖGGH (Hrsg). Endoskopie in Österreich. 1. Ausgabe 2004/2005. Krause & Pachernegg GmbH, Verlag für Medizin und Wirtschaft
• 25 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) . Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. A consensus statement from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 831-837
• 26 Cotton P B, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al . Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 383-393
• 27 Loperfido S, Monica F. Post-ERCP septic complications. UpToDate 2007 http://www.uptodate.com
• 28 Lambert R, Rey J F. Appropriateness of diagnostic digestive endoscopy.  Dig Dis. 2002;  20 236-241
• 29 Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy .Guidelines on the training, appraisal and assessment of trainees in GI endoscopy. London; JAG 2004. http://www.thejag.org.uk/jag _2004.pdf
• 30 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) . Principles of training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. From the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.  Gastroinest Endosc. 1999;  49 845-853
• 31 Wigton R S. Measuring procedural skills.  Ann Intern Med. 1996;  125 1003-1004
• 32 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S. et al . Complications of ERCP: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 721-731
• 33 Barthet M, Lesavre N, Desjeux A. et al . Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 991-997
• 34 Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A. et al . Outcome and early complications of ERCP: a prospective single center study.  Hepatogastroenterology. 2005;  52 352-355
• 35 Harris A, Chan A C, Torres-Viera C. et al . Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 718-724
• 36 Hirota W K, Petersen K, Baron T H. et al . Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;  58 475-482
• 37 Rey J R, Axon A, Budzynska A. et al . Guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (E.S.G.E.): antibiotic prophylaxis for gastrointestinal endoscopy. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 318-324
• 38 Renner F, Mittermayer H, Haefner M. et al . Antibiotikaprophylaxe in der gastrointestinalen Endoskopie. Empfehlungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie und Hetpatologie.  Z Gastroenterol. 2002;  40 1-7
• 39 Schreiber F. Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (OGGH) – guidelines on sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 259-262