Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The burden of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed with the patient under conscious sedation

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an invasive procedure that proves burdensome to patients. Nevertheless, very little data are available on patient tolerance of this procedure that may improve practice guidelines and could aid in decreasing the burden of ERCP. This study therefore investigated the burden of ERCP performed with the patient under conscious sedation.

Methods

Consecutive patients receiving ERCP under conscious sedation between November 2007 and December 2008 at the University Medical Center Utrecht and Erasmus MC Rotterdam (The Netherlands) were asked to participate in this study. The patients completed questionnaires on demographics, medical history, burden of ERCP (mental health, discomfort, and pain), symptoms and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D), including the EQ-VAS (lower EQ-5D scores and higher EQ-VAS scores represent a better quality of life). The paired t-test, the Kruskal–Wallis test, Pearson correlation, and logistic regression were used to evaluate the results.

Results

The questionnaire was returned by 149 (54%) of 276 eligible patients, 139 of whom completed the entire questionnaire (54% males; mean age, 60 ± 14 years). Throat ache (p < 0.001) was the only symptom higher than baseline value 1 day after the ERCP. On day 1, about one-tenth of the patients experienced moderate to severe mental health problems, which were associated with a higher EQ-5D score before ERCP (p = 0.01). Slightly fewer than half of the patients experienced pain and discomfort during and immediately after ERCP. More discomfort was experienced by patients who underwent therapeutic ERCP (p < 0.05) and those with a higher EQ-5D score (p < 0.001) or lower VAS (p < 0.01). Pain was associated with younger age (p < 0.01), higher EQ-5D score (p < 0.001), and lower VAS (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

One-third to one-half of patients experience pain and discomfort during and immediately after ERCP when it is performed with conscious sedation for the patient. Other sedation strategies, such as the use of general anesthesia or propofol, may well reduce the burden of ERCP, particularly for patients with a higher EQ-5D score, younger age, or therapeutic ERCP treatment. However, randomized trials are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Freeman ML (2002) Adverse outcomes of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 56(6 Suppl):S273–S282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, Geenen JE, Russell RC, Meyers WC, Liguory C, Nickl N (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37:383–393

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Sherman S, Ruffolo TA, Hawes RH, Lehman GA (1991) Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: a prospective series with emphasis on the increased risk associated with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and nondilated bile ducts. Gastroenterology 101:1068–1075

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS, Bouchard S, Barkun AN (1998) Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 30:457–463

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Barthet M, Lesavre N, Desjeux A, Gasmi M, Berthezene P, Berdah S, Viviand X, Grimaud JC (2002) Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 34:991–997

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J (2004) Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 60:721–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kruijshaar ME, Kerkhof M, Siersema PD, Steyerberg EW, Homs MY, Essink-Bot ML (2006) The burden of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy 38:873–878

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Masci E, Rossi M, Minoli G, Mangiavillano B, Bianchi G, Colombo E, Comin U, Fesce E, Perego M, Ravelli P, Lella F, Buffoli F et al (2009) Patient satisfaction after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary stones: a prospective multicenter study in Lombardy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 24:1510–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Menon K, Barkun AN, Romagnuolo J, Friedman G, Mehta SN, Reinhold C, Bret PM (2001) Patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP. Am J Gastroenterol 96:2646–2650

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Colton JB, Curran CC (2009) Quality indicators, including complications, of ERCP in a community setting: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 70:457–467

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johanson JF, Cooper G, Eisen GM, Freeman M, Goldstein JL, Jensen DM, Sahai A, Schmitt CM, Schoenfeld P (2002) Quality assessment of ERCP: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 56:165–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Essink-Bot ML, Rijnsburger AJ, van DS, de Koning HJ, Seynaeve C (2006) Women’s acceptance of MRI in breast cancer surveillance because of a familial or genetic predisposition. Breast 15:673–676

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Essink-Bot ML, de Koning HJ, Nijs HG, Kirkels WJ, van der Maas PJ, Schroder FH (1998) Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:925–931

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dolan P (1997) Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 35:1095–1108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jung HS, Park DK, Kim MJ, Yu SK, Kwon KA, Ku YS, Kim YK, Kim JH (2009) A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean J Intern Med 24:43–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Essink-Bot ML, Kruijshaar ME, Bac DJ, Wisman PJ, ter Borg F, Steyerberg EW, Siersema PD (2007) Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups Qual Life Res 16(8):1309–1318

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ren J, Xie P, Lang IM, Bardan E, Sui Z, Shaker R (2000) Deterioration of the pharyngo-UES contractile reflex in the elderly. Laryngoscope 110:1563–1566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kongkam P, Rerknimitr R, Punyathavorn S, Sitthi-Amorn C, Ponauthai Y, Prempracha N, Kullavanijaya P (2008) Propofol infusion versus intermittent meperidine and midazolam injection for conscious sedation in ERCP. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 17:291–297

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barriga J, Sachdev MS, Royall L, Brown G, Tombazzi CR (2008) Sedation for upper endoscopy: comparison of midazolam versus fentanyl plus midazolam. South Med J 101:362–366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yi SY, Shin JE (2005) Midazolam for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective, single-blind, and randomized study to determine the appropriate amount and time of initiation of endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20:1873–1879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Campo R, Brullet E, Montserrat A, Calvet X, Donoso L, Bordas JM (2000) Efficacy of low and standard midazolam doses for gastroscopy: a randomized, double-blind study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 12:187–190

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

S. M. Jeurnink, E. W. Steyerberg, E. J. Kuipers, and P. D. Siersema have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    S. M. Jeurnink & P. D. Siersema

  2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC/University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    E. W. Steyerberg

  3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC/University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    S. M. Jeurnink & E. J. Kuipers

  4. Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC/University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    E. J. Kuipers

Authors
  1. S. M. Jeurnink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. W. Steyerberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. J. Kuipers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. D. Siersema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. M. Jeurnink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jeurnink, S.M., Steyerberg, E.W., Kuipers, E.J. et al. The burden of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed with the patient under conscious sedation. Surg Endosc 26, 2213–2219 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2162-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2162-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation