Efficacy and safety of ERCP in a low-volume hospital.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: there is little scientific evidence on the outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed in low-volume hospitals; however, in our country, it is growing up its implementation. The objectives of our study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique performed by two endoscopists with basic training in a center of this nature and analyze the learning curve in the first procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: single-center retrospective study of the first 200 ERCP performed in our hospital (analyzing the evolution between the first 100 and 100 following procedures), comparing them with the quality standards proposed in the literature. RESULTS: from February 2009 to April 2011, we performed 200 ERCP in 169 patients, and the most common indications were: Choledocholithiasis (77 %), tumors (14.5 %) and other conditions (8.5 %). The cannulation rate rose from 85 % in the first 100 ERCPto 89 % in the next 100 procedures, clinical success from 81 % to 87 %, decreasing the post-ERCP acute pancreatitis rate from 11 % to 4 %, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from 3 % to 2 % and acute cholangitis from 4 % to 1 %. There was a death from a massive UGIB in a cirrhotic patient in the first group of patients and a case of biliary perforation resolved by surgery in the second one. CONCLUSIONS: the results obtained after performing 200 procedures support the ability to practice ERCP in low-volume hospitals obtaining levels of efficacy and safety in accordance with published quality standards.

Endoscopist-directed propofol is more efficient than anesthesiologist-administered propofol in patients at low-intermediate anesthetic risk.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopist-directed propofol (EDP) sedation is becoming more popular, with a reported safety and efficacy similar to anesthesiologist-administered propofol (AAP). The aim of this study is to compare the efficiency of EDP and AAP in patients of low-intermediate anesthetic risk. METHODS: A prospective cost-effectiveness comparison study was conducted. The costs of the endoscopic procedures in the EDP and AAP group were calculated using the full cost methodology after breaking down the endoscopic activity into relative value units to allocate costs in an equitable way. To determine the effectiveness, adverse events related to endoscopic sedation and the number of incomplete procedures were registered for the EDP group and compared with those published by anesthesiologists for AAP. RESULTS: A total of 1165 and 18 919 endoscopic procedures were, respectively, included in the EDP and AAP groups. The average costs of EDP vs. AAP for gastroscopy, colonoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound were &OV0556; 182.81 vs. &OV0556; 332.93, &OV0556; 297.07 vs. &OV0556; 459.76, and &OV0556; 319.92 vs. &OV0556; 485.12, respectively. No significant differences were detected regarding the rate of overall adverse events (4.43 vs. 4.46%) or serious adverse events (0 vs. 0.17%); the rate of arterial hypotension was significantly lower in the EDP group: 0.34 vs. 1.78% [odds ratio (OR), 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08-0.46] and the desaturation rate was significantly lower in the AAP group: 3.26 vs. 1.29% (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.85-3.60). No significant differences were found in terms of incomplete examinations (0.17 vs. 0.14%). CONCLUSION: In patients with low-intermediate anesthetic risk referred for an endoscopic examination, EDP appears to be more efficient than AAP.