Comparison of outcomes for supine vs. prone position ERCP: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is usually performed in the prone position, some studies have advocated for ERCP in the supine position. Studies comparing the technical success and safety outcomes have shown variable results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the comparison between the two positions for ERCP outcomes.

Methods We conducted a search of electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through October 2016) to identify studies that reported the comparison of technical success and safety outcomes between supine and prone ERCP. The primary outcome was to estimate the pooled rates of technical success. The secondary outcome was to estimate the risks of complications, such as cardiopulmonary and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

Results Six studies reporting on 309 supine and 1415 prone ERCPs were identified. The pooled technical success rates for completion of ERCP in supine and prone positions were 89.1 % (95 %CI = 80.9 – 94.0) and 95.6 % (95 %CI = 91.5 – 97.7), respectively. The pooled rates for complications (cardiopulmonary and PEP) in the supine position were 37.5 % (95 %CI = 19.1 – 60.3) and 3.5 % (95 %CI = 1.6 – 7.3), respectively. The pooled rates for complications (cardiopulmonary and PEP) in the prone position were 41.0 % (95 %CI = 20.9 – 64.8) and 3.9 % (95 %CI = 2.4 – 6.4), respectively. The mean time required for the procedure was 30 minutes and 29.8 minutes for supine and prone positions, respectively. Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis.

Conclusion Prone ERCPs have a higher technical success rate with a slightly lower mean duration but a higher number of adverse events. The decision with regard to patient position should be made after evaluating the overall clinical scenario.

^* These authors contributed equally.

• References

• 1 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al. Are we meeting the standards set for endoscopy? Results of a large-scale prospective survey of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatograph practice. Gut 2007; 56: 821-829
• 2 Olsson G, Arnelo U, Swahn F. et al. The H.O.U.S.E. classification: a novel endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complexity grading scale. BMC Gastroenterol 2017; 17: 38
• 3 Yakshe P, Vennes J. Technique of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Gastroenterologic Endoscopy. 2nd. edn. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders Company; 2000: 845-862
• 4 Terruzzi V, Radaelli F, Meucci G. et al. Is the supine position as safe and effective as the prone position for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective randomized study. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1211-1214
• 5 Wilcox CM. Should patients undergoing ERCP be placed in the prone or supine position?. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 5: 488-489
• 6 Froehlich F. Patient position during ERCP: prone versus supine. What about left lateral throughout?. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 755 ; author reply 755
• 7 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336-341
• 8 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
• 9 Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558
• 10 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
• 11 Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis: power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1119-1129
• 12 Ferreira LE, Baron TH. Comparison of safety and efficacy of ERCP performed with the patient in supine and prone positions. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 1037-1043
• 13 Tringali A, Mutignani M, Milano A. et al. No difference between supine and prone position for ERCP in conscious sedated patients: a prospective randomized study. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 93-97
• 14 Diehl D. Supine patient positioning for ERCP: indications and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: AB291
• 15 Nijhawan S, Jha A, Sharma A. et al. ERCP: is it better in supine position under general anaesthesia?. Indian J Gastroenterol 2010; 29: A116
• 16 Trecero SRP, Acuesta WCR, Purwanta RS. et al. A prospective, randomized, open-label comparison of safety, efficacy and success rate of ERCP on prone and supine position. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25: A53