Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2018; 56(10): 1227-1236
DOI: 10.1055/a-0661-6068
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Österreichisches Benchmarking ERCP: 10-Jahresbericht

Austrian benchmarking project for ERCP: a 10-year report
Melanie Kienbauer
1   Interne 4 – Gastroenterologie, Ordensklinikum Linz Elisabethinen, Linz, Austria
,
Christine Duller
2   Johannes Kepler Universität Linz Institut für Angewandte Statistik, Linz, Austria
,
Michael Gschwantler
3   4. Medizinische Abteilung, Wilhelminenspital der Stadt Wien, Wien, Austria
,
Andreas Püspök
4   Abteilung für Innere Medizin II, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Eisenstadt, Eisenstadt, Austria
,
Rainer Schöfl
1   Interne 4 – Gastroenterologie, Ordensklinikum Linz Elisabethinen, Linz, Austria
,
Christine Kapral
1   Interne 4 – Gastroenterologie, Ordensklinikum Linz Elisabethinen, Linz, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

07 April 2018

13 July 2018

Publication Date:
14 August 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Seit 10 Jahren überblickt das Qualitätssicherungsprogramm „Benchmarking ERCP“ unter der Patronanz der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie (ÖGGH) mit einjähriger Unterbrechung (2008) in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Institut für Angewandte Statistik der Johannes Kepler Universität Linz die Ergebnisqualität, Erfolgsrate und Patientensicherheit bei der ERCP in Österreich anhand von derzeit 28 319 gesammelten Untersuchungen.

Die teilnehmenden Zentren mit unterschiedlicher ERCP-Frequenz und Untersucherzahl können so anhand des Vergleichs den gepoolten Benchmark-Daten individuelle Probleme in Hinblick auf Erfolgs-, Sondierungs- und Komplikationsraten (3,9 % Post-ERCP-Pankreatitiden, 3,8 % Blutungen, 0,6 % Perforationen, 1,2 % Cholangitiden, 1,0 % kardiopulmonale Komplikationen) erkennen und verbessern.

Abstract

The quality assurance program “Benchmarking ERCP”, that his been under the patronage of the ÖGGH for ten years (with a one-year break in 2008), in collaboration with the Institute for Applied Statistics University Linz, has followed patient safety measures and successes while undergoing ERCP in Austria. A total of 28 319 examinations were registered. The participating centers all had different ERCP frequency and variable expertise, thereby enabling them to recognise individual problems in terms of success, cannulation and complication rates (3.9 % post-ERCP pancreatitis, 3.8 % bleeding, 0.6 % perforation, 1.2 % cholangitis, 1.0 % cardiopulmonary complications). The aim of quality assurance measures in medicine is to ensure the best possible patient care.

Schlüsselwörter

ERCP - Benchmarking - Qualitätsbewertung - Erfolgsrate - Komplikationsrate

Key words

ERCP - benchmarking - quality assessment - success rate - complication rate
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 McCune WS, Shorb PE, Moscovitz H. et al. Endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of vater: a preliminary report. Ann Surg 1968; 167: 752-756
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J. et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 80-88
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F. et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 31-40
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Andriuli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S. et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Masci E, Toti A, Mariani S. et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Vandervoort J, Soedikno RM, Tham TC. et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 652-656
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Barthet M, Lesavre N, Desjeux A. et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 991-997
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Martin L, Freeman ML. et al. Adverse outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: avoidance and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2003; 13: 775-798
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S. et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Freeman ML, Guda NM. et al. Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 845-864
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Guideline: Complications of ERCP. Gastroinest Endosc 2012; 75: 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F. et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 625-630
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 831-837
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 O’Mahony S, Naylor G, Axon A. et al. Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 483-488
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Johanson JF, Cooper G, Eisen GM. et al. Quality assessment of ERCP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopacreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 165-169
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A. et al. Setting up a quality assurance program in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 701-707
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Baron T, Petersen B, Mergener K. et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 892-897
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Faigel D, Pike I, Baron T. et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an introduction. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 866-872
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Weiss W. et al. Übersicht der Diagnose- und Therapiemöglichkeiten gastroenterologischer Einrichtungen in Spitälern und Ordinationen niedergelassener Fachärzte (Internisten, Chirurgen, gastroenterologische Spezialpraxen) in Österreich. ÖGGH (Hrsg). Endoskopie in Österreich 1. Ausgabe 2004/2005; Krause & Pachernegg GmbH Verlag für Medizin und Wirtschaft.
    PubMed
  • 23 Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J. et al. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 868-874
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ignatavicius P, Gulla A, Cernauskis K. et al. How severe is moderately severe acute pancreatitis? Clinical calidation of revised 2012 Atlanta Classification. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 7785-7790
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Loperfido S, Monic F. Post-ERCP septic complications. UpToDate 2007. www.uptodate.com
    PubMed
  • 26 Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis – Update June 2014. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 799-815
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Kawguchi Y, Ogawa M, Omata F. et al. Randomized controlled trial of pancreatic stenting to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18: 1635-1641
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Hou YC, Hu Q, Huang J. et al. Efficacy and safty of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2017; 7: 46650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Elmunzer BJ, Scheiman JM, Lehman GA. et al. A randomized trial of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1414-1422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 139-147
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Harris A, Chan AC, Torres-Viera C. et al. Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 1999; 31: 718-724
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Rey JR, Axon A, Budzynska A. et al. Guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (E.S.G.E.) antibiotic prophylaxis for gastrointestinal endoscopy. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 318-324
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Hirota WK, Petersen K, Baron TH. et al. Standards of Practice Commitee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 475-482
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Banerjee S, Shen B, Baron TH. et al. American Society of Gastrointestinal. Endoscopy Guideline. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 791-798
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Wewalka F, Kapral C, Brownstone E. et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastrointestinal endoscopy-recommendations of the Austrian Society of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Z Gastroenterol 2010; 48: 1225-1229
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Lella F, Bagnolo F, Colombo E. et al. A simple way of avoiding post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 830-834
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. A prospective randomized trial of cannulation technique in ERCP: effects on technical success and post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 296-301
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Matsubara H, Urano F, Kinoshita Y. et al. Analysis of risk factors for severity in post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopanreatography pancreatitis: The indication of prophylactic treatments. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 9: 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). Guideline: Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1060
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar