BACKGROUND: ERCP practice patterns in the United States are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the ERCP practice of U.S. gastroenterologists, stratified by their annual case volume: high volume (HV, >200), moderate volume (MV, 50-200), and low volume (LV, <50). DESIGN: Anonymous electronic survey. SUBJECTS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy members who are practicing U.S. gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Among all responders (N = 1006), 63% were derived from community practices. Physicians who performed ERCPs and provided data on annual volume (n = 669) were classified as LV (n = 254), MV (n = 284), and HV (n = 131). During training, 77% of LV physicians did not complete 180 ERCPs compared with 58% of MV and 34% of HV physicians (P < .0001). Only 58% of LV physicians enjoy performing ERCP compared with 88% of MV and 98% of HV physicians (P < .0001); 60% reported being "very comfortable" with ERCP compared with more than 90% of MV and HV physicians (P < .0001). LV physicians are less comfortable with pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) (57% vs 92% [MV] and 98% [HV], P ≤ .02) and using prophylactic PDS. Although HV physicians (42%) were least likely to use short-wire devices (P < .02), use of wire-guided cannulation was similar (74% LV, 72% MV, 66% HV, P = .13). Thirty-seven percent of LV physicians reported comfort with needle-knife sphincterotomy compared with 75% (MV) and 99% (HV) (P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Survey completion rate of 18.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported comfort and/or enjoyment with ERCP is lower among LV physicians. Wire-guided cannulation is used by the majority of all ERCP practitioners, but prophylactic PDS is less frequently used by LV physicians. Because many LV physicians perform ERCP for higher-grade indications and use advanced techniques (eg, needle-knife sphincterotomy), further LV physician ERCP outcomes data are needed.
BACKGROUND: ERCP practice patterns in the United States are largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the ERCP practice of U.S. gastroenterologists, stratified by their annual case volume: high volume (HV, >200), moderate volume (MV, 50-200), and low volume (LV, <50). DESIGN: Anonymous electronic survey. SUBJECTS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy members who are practicing U.S. gastroenterologists. RESULTS: Among all responders (N = 1006), 63% were derived from community practices. Physicians who performed ERCPs and provided data on annual volume (n = 669) were classified as LV (n = 254), MV (n = 284), and HV (n = 131). During training, 77% of LV physicians did not complete 180 ERCPs compared with 58% of MV and 34% of HV physicians (P < .0001). Only 58% of LV physicians enjoy performing ERCP compared with 88% of MV and 98% of HV physicians (P < .0001); 60% reported being "very comfortable" with ERCP compared with more than 90% of MV and HV physicians (P < .0001). LV physicians are less comfortable with pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) (57% vs 92% [MV] and 98% [HV], P ≤ .02) and using prophylactic PDS. Although HV physicians (42%) were least likely to use short-wire devices (P < .02), use of wire-guided cannulation was similar (74% LV, 72% MV, 66% HV, P = .13). Thirty-seven percent of LV physicians reported comfort with needle-knife sphincterotomy compared with 75% (MV) and 99% (HV) (P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Survey completion rate of 18.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported comfort and/or enjoyment with ERCP is lower among LV physicians. Wire-guided cannulation is used by the majority of all ERCP practitioners, but prophylactic PDS is less frequently used by LV physicians. Because many LV physicians perform ERCP for higher-grade indications and use advanced techniques (eg, needle-knife sphincterotomy), further LV physician ERCP outcomes data are needed.
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Daniel K Mullady; Sreenivasa S Jonnalagadda; Rajesh N Keswani; Sachin B Wani; Christine E Hovis; Tarek Ammar; Abed Al-Lehibi; Steven A Edmundowicz; Sri Komanduri; Riad R Azar Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Evan L Fogel; Safi Shahda; Kumar Sandrasegaran; John DeWitt; Jeffrey J Easler; David M Agarwal; Mackenzie Eagleson; Nicholas J Zyromski; Michael G House; Susannah Ellsworth; Ihab El Hajj; Bert H O'Neil; Attila Nakeeb; Stuart Sherman Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: James Buxbaum; Paul Leonor; Jonathan Tung; Christianne Lane; Ara Sahakian; Loren Laine Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gregory A Coté; Timothy D Imler; Huiping Xu; Evgenia Teal; Dustin D French; Thomas F Imperiale; Marc B Rosenman; Jeffery Wilson; Siu L Hui; Stuart Sherman Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chunyan Peng; Paul J Nietert; Peter B Cotton; Daniel T Lackland; Joseph Romagnuolo Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2013-10-10 Impact factor: 3.067
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 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.628
Authors: Christina J Sperna Weiland; Megan M L Engels; Alexander C Poen; Abha Bhalla; Niels G Venneman; Jeanin E van Hooft; Marco J Bruno; Robert C Verdonk; Paul Fockens; Joost P H Drenth; Erwin J M van Geenen Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.199