Lincoln E V V C Ferreira1, Todd H Baron. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ERCP is usually performed with the patient in the prone position. Little data exist on ERCP in the supine position, which is considered unsafe in nonintubated patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare outcomes of ERCP in the prone and supine positions. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing ERCP by one endoscopist over an 18-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, procedural degree of difficulty, procedural time, success rates, complication rates, effects on oxygen desaturation and hemodynamics, amount of sedation, need for precut sphincterotomy. RESULTS: A total of 649 patients were evaluated, of whom 506 patients were prone and 143 were supine. There were no differences between the groups with regard to sex, procedural time, ASA scores, need for precut sphincterotomy, adverse cardiovascular events, episodes of oxygen desaturation, dose of meperidine or midazolam, or oxygen supplementation. Complete success and complication rates were similar for both groups (90.2% and 11.2% for supine and 92.5% and 9.1% for prone, respectively). Procedural degree of difficulty was significantly higher in the supine group (P < .001). There were no episodes of aspiration in either group and no severe complications. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, one endoscopist. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP performed in nonintubated patients placed supine is often more difficult and may lead to more mild adverse respiratory events than when performed with the patient prone. Supine ERCP is appropriate in certain patients who cannot lie prone (abdominal pain, abdominal distention, ascites, recent abdominal or neck surgery, indwelling percutaneous tubes and need for access during the procedure to indwelling internal/external percutaneous biliary catheters, and in the morbidly obese) with more intensive monitoring in those who are not intubated.
BACKGROUND: ERCP is usually performed with the patient in the prone position. Little data exist on ERCP in the supine position, which is considered unsafe in nonintubated patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare outcomes of ERCP in the prone and supine positions. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary care medical center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing ERCP by one endoscopist over an 18-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, procedural degree of difficulty, procedural time, success rates, complication rates, effects on oxygen desaturation and hemodynamics, amount of sedation, need for precut sphincterotomy. RESULTS: A total of 649 patients were evaluated, of whom 506 patients were prone and 143 were supine. There were no differences between the groups with regard to sex, procedural time, ASA scores, need for precut sphincterotomy, adverse cardiovascular events, episodes of oxygen desaturation, dose of meperidine or midazolam, or oxygen supplementation. Complete success and complication rates were similar for both groups (90.2% and 11.2% for supine and 92.5% and 9.1% for prone, respectively). Procedural degree of difficulty was significantly higher in the supine group (P < .001). There were no episodes of aspiration in either group and no severe complications. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, one endoscopist. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP performed in nonintubated patients placed supine is often more difficult and may lead to more mild adverse respiratory events than when performed with the patient prone. Supine ERCP is appropriate in certain patients who cannot lie prone (abdominal pain, abdominal distention, ascites, recent abdominal or neck surgery, indwelling percutaneous tubes and need for access during the procedure to indwelling internal/external percutaneous biliary catheters, and in the morbidly obese) with more intensive monitoring in those who are not intubated.
Authors: Keith Siau; George Webster; Mark Wright; Ben Maher; Brian Stedman; Gavin Johnson; Saqib Ahmad; Nadeem Tehami Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-11
Authors: Yaseen B Perbtani; Robert J Summerlee; Dennis Yang; Qi An; Alejandro Suarez; J Blair Williamson; Charles W Shrode; Anand R Gupte; Shailendra S Chauhan; Peter V Draganov; Chris E Forsmark; Myron Chang; Mihir S Wagh Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas R McCarty; Kelly E Hathorn; David W Creighton; Mohd Amer AlSamman; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.275
Authors: Osayande Osagiede; Gabriel A Bolaños; Jordan Cochuyt; Luisa M Cruz; Paul T Kröner; Frank J Lukens; Juan E Corral Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02-26