Abstract
Background
Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex endoscopic procedure performed by both gastroenterologists and surgeons. There has been recent controversy regarding training paradigms for gastrointestinal endoscopy. No prior studies have evaluated comparative outcomes for ERCP in relation to specialty training background. This study utilized the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) to assess ERCP outcomes as a function of training background, practice pattern, and individual provider volume.
Methods
NIS data was queried from 2007 to 2009. Gastroenterologists and surgeons were identified by procedural profiles and unique physician identifiers. Comorbidity was assessed via Charlson Score. Outcomes including cost, length of stay (LOS), and mortality were analyzed, with and without propensity score matching (PSM). Analysis of outcomes as a function of provider procedural volume was also performed. Comparison for statistical significance was accomplished via t test.
Results
A total of 110,811 ERCP’s were identified, of which 42,025 (37.9%) were performed by surgeons. Surgeons exhibited longer LOS (8.7 vs. 7.2 days), overall cost ($24,739 vs. $16,960), and mortality (3.9 vs. 1.2%, odds ratio 3.3), with p < 0.001 for all measures. 71.6% of surgical patients, versus 19.6% of gastroenterologic, underwent subsequent inpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy or laparotomy. Outcome differences persisted when PSM included performance of subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Evaluation of minimum performance standards revealed up to a fivefold increased mortality for providers who performed less than 5 ERCP’s/year, irrespective of specialty background.
Conclusions
Gastroenterologists demonstrate favorable gross outcomes compared to surgeons performing ERCP. Differences may correlate in part with more frequent subsequent surgical management of comorbid conditions by surgical providers. Lower volume providers achieve inferior outcomes regardless of specialty background. Analyses of this type may help inform discussions on optimal training and proficiency paradigms, including maintenance of proficiency, for therapeutic endoscopic procedures.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rustaqi T et al (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related adverse events: general overview. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 25(1):97–106
Piefer KJ (2005) Third tier fellowship training: advantages and selection. Gastrointest Endosc 61:427–428
Jirapinyo J, Imaeda A, Thompson C et al (2015) Endoscopic training in gastroenterology fellowship: adherence to core curriculum guidelines. Surg Endosc 29:3570–3578
Wani S, Hall M, Wang AY et al (2016) Variation in learning curves and competence for ERCP among advanced endoscopy trainees by using cumulative sum analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 83:711–719
The American Board of Surgery (2011) ABS statement on GI endoscopy. http://absurgery.org/default.jsp?newsgiresponse
ASGE, AASLD, ACG, and AGA Statement Regarding the ABS Mandate for Surgery Resident Training in Endoscopy. www.asge.org/…/Pressroom/JointSocietyABSTrainingStatement2011.pdf
ASGE Taskforce on Ensuring Competence in Endoscopy and American College of Gastroenterology Executive and Practices Management Committees. Ensuring competence in endoscopy. http://dev.asge.org/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=3384
Shahidi N, Ou G, Telford J et al (2015) When trainees reach competency in performing ERCP: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 81:1337–1342
Vitale G, Zavaleta C et al (2006) Training surgeons in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 20:149–152
Cotton PB (2011) Are low volume ERCPists a problem in the United States? A plea to examine and improve ERCP practice—NOW. Gastrointest Endosc 74:161–166
McCune WS et al (1968) Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of Vater: a preliminary report. Ann Surg 167:752–756
Boehler ML, Sanfey H, Mellinger J et al (2016) Do surgeons and gastroenterologists describe endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography differently? A qualitative study. J Surg Educ 73:66–72
Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H et al (2013) Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Med Care 51:1040–1047
Varadrajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM et al (2006) Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 64:338–347
Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Guidelines committee. (2007) Guidelines for training in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Surg Endosc 6:1010–1011
ASGE Training Committee (2016) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 83:279–289
Fried GM, Marks JM, Mellinger JD et al (2014) ASGE’s assessment of competency in endoscopy evaluation tools for colonoscopy and EGD. Gastrointest Endosc 80:366–367
Jeurnink SM, Poley JW, Steyerberg EW et al (2008) ERCP as an outpatient treatment: a review. Gastrointest Endosc 68:118–123
James PD, Kaplan GG, Meyers RP et al (2014) Decreasing mortality from acute biliary diseases that require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:1151–1159
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Drs. Cooper, Desai, Scaife, Gonczy, and Mellinger have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cooper, J., Desai, S., Scaife, S. et al. Volume, specialty background, practice pattern, and outcomes in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an analysis of the national inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 31, 2953–2958 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5312-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5312-0