Is outpatient ERCP suitable, feasible, and safe? The experience of a Spanish community hospital
- 134 Downloads
We wanted to evaluate the safety of outpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The follow-up of an ERCP outpatient during a short observation period could be a feasible and safe approach.
To evaluate the safety of outpatient ERCP, we assessed the rate of post-ERCP complications found and missed during a 6-h observation period after therapeutic ERCP.
We performed 236 ERCPs on an outpatient basis, with a failure rate of 3.7% but with an overall completion rate for the intended treatment of 90.7%. Seventy-eight percent of the ERCPs were primarily therapeutic. The age of the patients was 63.9 years and 61.9% were females. One hundred seventy-seven (74.5%) patients were discharged from the hospital after the observation period. Thirty-three (14.1%) patients were admitted without further delay due to unexpected ERCP findings or for early detection of complications. Twenty-seven (11.4%) patients had a prolonged hospital stay because of complications during the observation period. Just two patients previously discharged developed later complications: cholangitis and pancreatitis (0.84% of the ERCPs and 7.4% of the overall complications). There were 27 ERCP complications (12.1%). Of the overall complications, 29.6% were diagnosed very early after the procedure and 62.9% were diagnosed during the observation period. 8.9% out of the 12.1% of the ERCP complications were mild to moderate. There was no mortality.
Twenty-five (92.6%) of ERCP complications occurred during the first 6 h, making the use of this short observation period safe for an early discharge. The evolution of the patients who developed delayed complications was unremarkable. Whenever outpatient ERCP is feasible, it should be done to help cut costs.
KeywordsERCP (Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) Biliopancreatic therapeutic procedures CBD (Common bile duct) Complications
Luís Rábago, Ivan Guerra, Marta Moran, Elvira Quintanilla, David Collado, Inmaculada Chico, Ana Olivares, Jose Luis Castro, and Francisco Gea have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 3.Mallery JS, Baron TH, Dominitz JA, Goldstein JL, Hirota WK, Jacobson BC, Leighton JA, Raddawi HM, Varg JJ 2nd, Waring JP, Fanelli RD, Wheeler-Harbough J, Eisen GM, Faigel DO, Standards of Practice Committee of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (2003) Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 57(6):633–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Johanson JF, Cooper G, Eisen GM, Freeman M, Goldstein JL, Jensen DM, Sahai A, Schmitt CM, Schoenfeld P, American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Outcomes Research Committee (2002) Quality assessment of ERCP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 56(2):165–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, Bjorkman DJ, Overby CS, Aas J, Ryan ME, Bochna GS, Shaw MJ, Snady HW, Erickson RV, Moore JP, Roel JP (2001) Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 54(4):425–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Fennerty MB, DiSario JA, Ryan ME, Kortan PP, Dorsher PJ, Shaw MJ, Herman ME, Cunningham JT, Moore JP, Silverman WB, Imperial JC, Mackie RD, Jamidar PA, Yakshe PN, Logan GM, Pheley AM (1999) Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complication study. The Multicenter Endoscopic Sphincterotomy (MESH) Study Group. Gastrointest Endosc 49(5):580–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar