BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many advances have been made in pancreatobiliary imaging and endoscopy techniques. However, little is known about trends in use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 33,596 ERCPs performed at Indiana University Medical Center from 1994 to 2009. Data from all patients were entered into an endoscopy database. We compared changes in patient demographics, indications for ERCP, and utilization of specific ERCP therapies during this time period. RESULTS: The annual volume of ECRP increased steadily from 1175 in 1994 to 2802 in 2009 (P < .0001). Of all patients, 33.9% had previously undergone an ERCP at a different facility; 42.3% of these were unsuccessful. The odds of having undergone a failed ERCP at another facility increased slightly each year (odds ratio, 1.02; P < .001). Among patients who had a failed ERCP elsewhere, the success rate at Indiana University Medical Center was 96.1%. The frequency of patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio, 1.12; P < .001) who received anesthesia-administered sedation increased each year (odds ratio, 1.25; P < .001). Most ERCPs were performed for common bile duct stones or strictures and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (77.2%). The most rapid increase was among procedures for common bile duct strictures or leaks, pancreatic duct stones or strictures, and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Rates of biliary sphincterotomy did not change (P = .252), but the frequency of pancreatic sphincterotomy, common bile duct, or pancreatic duct stent placement and pancreatic duct stricture dilation increased during this time (P < .001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: At a referral center, ERCP has become increasingly complex. From 1994 to 2009, increasing numbers of ERCPs have been performed for patients with more comorbidities, higher-grade disease, history of failed ERCPs, and on those receiving endotherapy.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Many advances have been made in pancreatobiliary imaging and endoscopy techniques. However, little is known about trends in use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study that analyzed data from 33,596 ERCPs performed at Indiana University Medical Center from 1994 to 2009. Data from all patients were entered into an endoscopy database. We compared changes in patient demographics, indications for ERCP, and utilization of specific ERCP therapies during this time period. RESULTS: The annual volume of ECRP increased steadily from 1175 in 1994 to 2802 in 2009 (P < .0001). Of all patients, 33.9% had previously undergone an ERCP at a different facility; 42.3% of these were unsuccessful. The odds of having undergone a failed ERCP at another facility increased slightly each year (odds ratio, 1.02; P < .001). Among patients who had a failed ERCP elsewhere, the success rate at Indiana University Medical Center was 96.1%. The frequency of patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (odds ratio, 1.12; P < .001) who received anesthesia-administered sedation increased each year (odds ratio, 1.25; P < .001). Most ERCPs were performed for common bile duct stones or strictures and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (77.2%). The most rapid increase was among procedures for common bile duct strictures or leaks, pancreatic duct stones or strictures, and suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Rates of biliary sphincterotomy did not change (P = .252), but the frequency of pancreatic sphincterotomy, common bile duct, or pancreatic duct stent placement and pancreatic duct stricture dilation increased during this time (P < .001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: At a referral center, ERCP has become increasingly complex. From 1994 to 2009, increasing numbers of ERCPs have been performed for patients with more comorbidities, higher-grade disease, history of failed ERCPs, and on those receiving endotherapy.
Authors: Sachin Wani; Samuel Han; Violette Simon; Matthew Hall; Dayna Early; Eva Aagaard; Wasif M Abidi; Subhas Banerjee; Todd H Baron; Michael Bartel; Erik Bowman; Brian C Brauer; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Linda Carlin; Amitabh Chak; Hemant Chatrath; Abhishek Choudhary; Bradley Confer; Gregory A Coté; Koushik K Das; Christopher J DiMaio; Andrew M Dries; Steven A Edmundowicz; Abdul Hamid El Chafic; Ihab El Hajj; Swan Ellert; Jason Ferreira; Anthony Gamboa; Ian S Gan; Lisa Gangarosa; Bhargava Gannavarapu; Stuart R Gordon; Nalini M Guda; Hazem T Hammad; Cynthia Harris; Sujai Jalaj; Paul Jowell; Sana Kenshil; Jason Klapman; Michael L Kochman; Sri Komanduri; Gabriel Lang; Linda S Lee; David E Loren; Frank J Lukens; Daniel Mullady; Raman V Muthusamy; Andrew S Nett; Mojtaba S Olyaee; Kavous Pakseresht; Pranith Perera; Patrick Pfau; Cyrus Piraka; John M Poneros; Amit Rastogi; Anthony Razzak; Brian Riff; Shreyas Saligram; James M Scheiman; Isaiah Schuster; Raj J Shah; Rishi Sharma; Joshua P Spaete; Ajaypal Singh; Muhammad Sohail; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah; Tyler Stevens; James H Tabibian; Demetrios Tzimas; Dushant S Uppal; Shiro Urayama; Domenico Vitterbo; Andrew Y Wang; Wahid Wassef; Patrick Yachimski; Sergio Zepeda-Gomez; Tobias Zuchelli; Rajesh N Keswani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 9.427
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: Gregory A Coté; B Joseph Elmunzer; Erin Forster; Robert A Moran; John G Quiles; Daniel S Strand; Dushant S Uppal; Andrew Y Wang; Peter B Cotton; Michael G McMurtry; James M Scheiman Journal: Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2021-01-18