Impact of center and endoscopist ERCP volume on ERCP outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist experience and center volume might be associated with ERCP outcomes, as in other fields of endoscopy and in surgery. An effort to assess this relationship is important to improve practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate these comparative data and to assess the impact of endoscopist and center volume on ERCP procedure outcomes. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus through March 2022. Volume classification included high- and low-volume (HV and LV) endoscopists and centers. The primary outcome was the impact of endoscopist and center volume on ERCP success. Secondary outcomes were the overall adverse event (AE) rate and the specific AE rate. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data synthesis was obtained by direct meta-analyses using a random-effects model; results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of 6833 relevant publications, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Procedure success was higher among HV endoscopists (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.59-2.06; I2 = 57%) and in HV centers (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22-2.57; I2 = 67%). The overall AE rate was lower for procedures performed by HV endoscopists (OR, .71; 95% CI, .61-.82; I2 = 38%) and in HV centers (OR, .70; 95% CI, .51-.97; I2 = 92%). Bleeding was less frequent in procedures performed by HV endoscopists (OR, .67; 95% CI, .48-.95; I2 = 37%) but did not differ based on center volume (OR, .68; 95% CI, .24-1.90; I2 = 89%). No statistical differences were detected concerning pancreatitis, cholangitis, and perforation rates. CONCLUSIONS: HV endoscopists and centers provide higher ERCP success rates with fewer overall AEs, especially bleeding, compared with respective LV comparators.

Efficacy and safety of transpancreatic sphincterotomy in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Difficult cannulation represents a common obstacle during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We assessed the efficacy and adverse events of transpancreatic sphincterotomy (TPS), and investigated potential associated confounders. Methods: All patients referred to our department for ERCP during 2015-2020 were eligible if they had intact papilla and visceral anatomy. In addition to standard measures, TPS was combined with pancreatic stent placement. Apart from demographics, we retrieved data related to the indication, periampullary anatomy, necessity for TPS or fistulotomy, their outcomes and complications. Chi-square test was employed to investigate associations between TPS and independent variables. When significance was observed, the respective variables were inserted into a regression model. Results: A total of 1082 individual patients were eligible, with an equal female: male ratio and a mean age of 72.7±15.82 years. Seventy-three patients (6.7%) underwent TPS, with a 95.9% successful cannulation rate. Papilla morphology or regional diverticulum did not affect the decision to perform TPS, though it was significantly associated with malignant common bile duct (CBD) obstruction as the ERCP indication (P=0.001). Considering adverse events, TPS did not increase the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), though it affected bleeding (P=0.005). Regression analysis revealed a protective role of TPS against PEP (risk ratio [RR] 0.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-5.05; P<0.001), while the aforementioned risk of hemorrhage was attributed to previous precut attempts (RR 3.02, 95%CI 1.42-6.43; P=0.004). Conclusion: TPS combined with pancreatic stenting is an effective and safe modality in difficult cannulation cases and could be the first-choice alternative in malignant CBD obstruction.

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP. METHODS: A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs). RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I2: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4; I2: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.7; I2: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3-78.0; I2: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3-72.9; I2: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5-99.6; I2: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3-99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9-99.2; I2: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8-99.2; I2: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP (p ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable (p ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40-20.8); I2: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50-18.8); I2: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50-6.80); p ≤ 0.04; I2: 64.2%]. CONCLUSIONS: LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.