Download PDF
Endoscopy 2018; 50(11): 1116-1127
DOI: 10.1055/a-0749-8767
Guideline
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

Dirk Domagk
1   Department of Medicine I, Josephs Hospital Warendorf, Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Muenster, Warendorf, Germany
,
Kofi W. Oppong
2   HPB Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
3   Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
,
Lars Aabakken
4   Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
5   Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo Norway
,
Laszlo Czakó
6   First Department of Medicine, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary
,
Tibor Gyökeres
7   Department of Gastroenterology, Medical Center Hungarian Defence Forces, Budapest, Hungary
,
Gianpiero Manes
8   Department of Gastroenterology, ASST Rhodense, Rho, and Garbagnate Milanese Hospitals, Milan, Italy
,
Peter Meier
9   Med. Klinik II, DIAKOVERE Henriettenstift, Klinik für Enterologie, Hannover, Germany
,
Jan-Werner Poley
10   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Thierry Ponchon
11   Department of Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France
,
Andrea Tringali
12   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli – IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy.
13   CERTT, Center for Endoscopic Research, Therapeutics and Training – Catholic University, Rome, Italy
,
Cristina Bellisario
14   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
,
Silvia Minozzi
1   Department of Medicine I, Josephs Hospital Warendorf, Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Muenster, Warendorf, Germany
,
Carlo Senore
14   CPO Piemonte, AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
,
Cathy Bennett
15   Office of Research and Innovation, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Coláiste Ríoga na Máinleá in Éirinn, Dublin, Ireland.
,
Michael Bretthauer
16   Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo and Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
,
Cesare Hassan
17   Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Michal F. Kaminski
18   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
19   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology and Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
20   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Norway
,
Mario Dinis-Ribeiro
21   Servicio de Gastroenterologia, Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil, Porto, Portugal
,
Colin J. Rees
22   Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
,
Cristiano Spada
12   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli – IRCCS, Catholic University, Rome, Italy.
23   Digestive Endoscopy and Gastroenterology Unit, Poliambulanza Foundation, Brescia, Italy
,
Roland Valori
24   Department of Gastroenterology, Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
,
Raf Bisschops
25   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Matthew D. Rutter
22   Northern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle, United Kingdom
26   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
19 October 2018 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level:

1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2 Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3 Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4 Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5 Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6 Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7 Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8 Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).

This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

 

  • References

  • 1 Rutter M, Senore C, Bisschops R. et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2015; 48: 81-89
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kaminski M, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843-864
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Linstone HA, Turoff M. 2nd edition The Delphi method – Techniques and applications. 2002 https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E. et al. Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement for reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position statement. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 291-294
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A. et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Khashab MA, Chithadi KV. Acosta RD et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Bai Y, Gao F, Gao J. et al. Prophylactic antibiotics cannot prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced cholangitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 2009; 38: 126-130
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Brand M, Bizos D, O’Farrell PJ. Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; CD007345 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007345.pub2
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 O’Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotçarena R. et al. Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 470-474
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Lee LS, Saltzman JR, Bounds BC. et al. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 231-236
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kwok K, Chang JC, Lim BS. et al. Sa1419 A pilot study on the use of prophylactic antibiotics for EUS-guided pancreatic cyst aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: AB207 doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.190
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Guarner-Argente C, Shah P, Buchner A. et al. Use of antimicrobials for EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective, comparative analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Rivera R, Ray A, Zacharia G. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts with and without antibiotic prophylaxis. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: S572-S509
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Polkowski M, Jenssen C, Kaye P. et al. Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 989-1006
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bailey A, Bourke M, Williams S. 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
  • 18 Coté GA, Ansstas M, Pawa R. et al. Difficult biliary cannulation: use of physician-controlled wire-guided cannulation over a pancreatic duct stent to reduce the rate of precut sphincterotomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 275-279
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kawakami H, Maguchi H, Mukai T. et al. A multicenter, prospective, randomized study of selective bile duct cannulation performed by multiple endoscopists: the BIDMEN study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 362-372
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kubota K, Sato T, Kato S. et al. Needle-knife precut papillotomy with a small incision over a pancreatic stent improves the success rate and reduces the complication rate in difficult biliary cannulations. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2013; 20: 382-388
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lopes L, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rolanda C. Safety and efficacy of precut needle-knife fistulotomy. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 759-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Miao L, Li Q-P, Zhu M-H. et al. Endoscopic transpancreatic septotomy as a precutting technique for difficult bile duct cannulation. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 3978-3982
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Sasahira N. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in wire-guided cannulation for therapeutic biliary ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 119-126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Panteris V, Vezakis A, Filippou G. et al. Influence of juxtapapillary diverticula on the success or difficulty of cannulation and complication rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 903-910
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Park CS, Park CH, Koh HR. et al. Needle-knife fistulotomy in patients with periampullary diverticula and difficult bile duct cannulation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1480-1483
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Parlak E, Suna N, Kuzu UB. et al. Diverticulum with papillae: does position of papilla affect technical success?. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2015; 25: 395-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Peng C, Nietert PJ, Cotton PB. et al. Predicting native papilla biliary cannulation success using a multinational endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) quality network. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 147
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Rajnakova A, Goh PM, Ngoi SS. et al. ERCP in patients with periampullary diverticulum. Hepatogastroenterology 2003; 50: 625-628
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Fukatsu H, Kawamoto H, Kato H. et al. Evaluation of needle-knife precut papillotomy after unsuccessful biliary cannulation, especially with regard to postoperative anatomic factors. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 717-723
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Ramesh J, Kim H, Reddy K. et al. Impact of pancreatic stent caliber on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatogram pancreatitis rates in patients with confirmed sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 29: 1563-1567
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Sasahira N, Kawakami H, Isayama H. et al. Early use of double-guidewire technique to facilitate selective bile duct cannulation: the multicenter randomized controlled EDUCATION trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 421-429
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Testoni PA, Giussani A, Vailati C. et al. Precut sphincterotomy, repeated cannulation and post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with bile duct stone disease. Dig Liver Dis 2011; 43: 792-796
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Tham TC, Kelly M. Association of periampullary duodenal diverticula with bile duct stones and with technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 1050-1053
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Tsuchiya T, Itoi T, Maetani I. et al. Effectiveness of the J-tip guidewire for selective biliary cannulation compared to conventional guidewires (The JANGLE Study). Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2502-2508
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Vihervaara H, Grönroos JM. Feasibility of the novel 3-step protocol for biliary cannulation – a prospective analysis. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2012; 22: 161-164
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Zhang Q-S, Han B, Xu J-H. et al. Needle-knife papillotomy and fistulotomy improved the treatment outcome of patients with difficult biliary cannulation. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 5506-5512
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Geraci G, Modica G, Sciumè C. et al. Intradiverticular ampulla of Vater: personal experience at ERCP. Diagn Ther Endosc 2013; 2013: 1-4
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Halttunen J, Kylänpää L. A prospective randomized study of thin versus regular-sized guide wire in wire-guided cannulation. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 1662-1667
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Halttunen J, Meisner S, Aabakken L. et al. Difficult cannulation as defined by a prospective study of the Scandinavian Association for Digestive Endoscopy (SADE) in 907 ERCPs. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 752-758
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Holt BA, Hawes R, Hasan M. et al. Biliary drainage: role of EUS guidance. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 160-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Huang L, Yu Q, Zhang Q. et al. Comparison between double-guidewire technique and transpancreatic sphincterotomy technique for difficult biliary cannulation. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 381-387
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Ito K, Horaguchi J, Fujita N. et al. Clinical usefulness of double-guidewire technique for difficult biliary cannulation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 442-449
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Katsinelos P, Paroutoglou G, Kountouras J. et al. A comparative study of standard ERCP catheter and hydrophilic guide wire in the selective cannulation of the common bile duct. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 302-307
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L. et al. Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 657-683
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Aithal GP, Anagnostopoulos GK, Tam W. et al. EUS-guided tissue sampling: comparison of “dual sampling” (Trucut biopsy plus FNA) with “sequential sampling” (Trucut biopsy and then FNA as required). Endoscopy 2007; 39: 725-730
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, de Lima LFP. et al. Cell block technique and cytological smears for the differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasms after endosonography-guided fine-needle aspiration. Acta Gastroenterol Latinoam 2008; 38: 246-251
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I. et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Jhala NC, Jhala D, Eltoum I. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy: a powerful tool to obtain samples from small lesions. Cancer 2004; 102: 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Alatawi A, Beuvon F, Grabar S. et al. Comparison of 22G reverse-beveled versus standard needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 343-352
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Baek HW, Park MJ, Rhee Y-Y. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology of pancreatic lesions. J Pathol Transl Med 2015; 49: 52-60
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Carrara S, Anderloni A, Jovani M. et al. A prospective randomized study comparing 25-G and 22-G needles of a new platform for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid masses. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 49-54
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Cleveland P, Gill KRS, Coe SG. et al. An evaluation of risk factors for inadequate cytology in EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic tumors and lymph nodes. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1194-1199
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Eloubeidi MA, Jhala D, Chhieng DC. et al. Yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy in patients with suspected pancreatic carcinoma. Cancer 2003; 99: 285-292
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Fritscher-Ravens A, Sriram PVJ, Krause C. et al. Detection of pancreatic metastases by EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 65-70
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Fritscher-Ravens A, Sriram PVJ, Bobrowski C. et al. Mediastinal lymphadenopathy in patients with or without previous malignancy: EUS-FNA-based differential cytodiagnosis in 153 patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 2278-2284
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Hucl T, Wee E, Anuradha S. et al. Feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core needle: a prospective comparison study. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 792-798
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I. et al. Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705-1710
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 67-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Miao L, Fan Z, Ji G. et al. Endoscopic stent for palliating malignant and benign biliary obstruction. Chinese J Cancer Res 2004; 16: 118-122
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 van Berkel A-M, Huibregtse IL, Bergman JJ. et al. A prospective randomized trial of Tannenbaum-type Teflon-coated stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16: 213-217
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Kuo C-M, Chiu Y-C, Changchien C-S. et al. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: evaluation of outcomes and complications in 298 patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46: 860-864
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Oppong KW, Romagnuolo J, Cotton PB. The ERCP quality network benchmarking project: A preliminary comparison of practice in UK and USA. Front Gastroenterol 2012; 3: 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 37: 383-393
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 64 Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E. et al. Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 81: 143-149.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F. et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 625-630
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1753-1761
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U. et al. Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1175-1184
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaløy JT. et al. Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 373-380
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Dumonceau J-M, Andriulli A, Elmunzer BJ. et al. Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – updated June 2014. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 799-815
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar