Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry

Background and study aims: Despite significant interest from health care authorities, patient organizations, and insurance companies, data on procedural outcome and quality of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in general and academic practice are sparse. The aims of this study were to assess procedural outcome of ERCP within a large prospective registry in The Netherlands, and to evaluate associations between endoscopist-related factors and procedural outcome.

Methods: All endoscopists performing ERCP in The Netherlands were invited to register their ERCPs over a 1-year period using the Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP (RAF-E). The primary outcome measure was procedural success. A priori difficulty level of the procedure was classified according to Schutz. Baseline characteristics of the endoscopist (e. g. previous experience) were recorded at study entry. Regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of procedural outcome.

Results: A total of 8575 ERCPs were registered by 171 endoscopists from 61 centers, constituting about 50 % of all ERCPs performed nationally during the study period. Overall procedural success was 85.8 %. Intact papillary anatomy was present in 5106 patients (59.5 %): procedural success in this subgroup of patients was 83.4 % vs. 89.4 % after sphincterotomy (P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression identified “degree of difficulty,” “intact papillary anatomy,” and “previous ERCP failure” to be independently associated with procedural failure. “Yearly volume of ERCPs” and “trainee involvement” were independently associated with success.

Conclusions: The nationwide prospective RAF-E registry proved to be a valuable tool to gain insight into procedural outcome of ERCPs.

• References

• 1 Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 892-897
• 2 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
• 3 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
• 4 Colton JB, Curran CC. Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 457-467
• 5 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
• 6 Schlup MM, Williams SM, Barbezat GO. ERCP: a review of technical competency and workload in a small unit. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 48-52
• 7 Jowell PS. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: toward a better understanding of competence. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 755-757
• 8 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, Haringsma J et al. Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance. Frontline Gastroenterol 2014; 5: 10-16
• 9 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
• 10 Cotton PB. Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 283-290
• 11 Kapral C, Muhlberger 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
• 12 Cotton PB, Romagnuolo J, Faigel DO et al. The ERCP quality network: a pilot study of benchmarking practice and performance. Am J Med Qual 2013; 28: 256-260
• 13 Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U et al. Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1175-1184.e3
• 14 DeBenedet AT, Elmunzer BJ, McCarthy ST et al. Intraprocedural quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1696-1704
• 15 Williams EJ, Ogollah R, Thomas P et al. What predicts failed cannulation and therapy at ERCP? Results of a large-scale multicenter analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 674-683
• 16 Peng C, Nietert PJ, Cotton PB et al. Predicting native papilla biliary cannulation success using a multinational Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Quality Network. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 147
• 17 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
• 18 Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H et al. Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Med Care 2013; 51: 1040-1047
• 19 Jeurnink SM, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW et al. Predictors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a prognostic model for early discharge. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 2892-2900