Does ERCP position matter? A randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and complications of left lateral versus prone position (POSITION study)

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is traditionally performed with patients in the prone position (PP). However, this poses a potentially increased risk of anesthetic complications. An alternative is the left lateral (LL) decubitus position, which is commonly used for endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to compare cannulation rate, time, and outcomes in ERCP performed in LL versus PP.

Patients and methods We conducted a non-inferiority, prospective, randomized control trial with 1:1 randomization to either LL or PP position. Patients > 18 years of age with native papillae requiring a therapeutic ERCP were recruited between March 2017 and November 2018 in a single tertiary center.

Results A total of 253 patients were randomized; 132 to LL (52.2 %) and 121 to PP (47.8 %). Cannulation rates were 97.0 % in LL vs 99.2 % in PP (difference –2.2 % (one-sided 95 % CI: –5 % to 0.6 %). Median time to biliary cannulation was 03:50 minutes in LL vs 02:57 minutes in PP (P = 0.62). Pancreatitis rates were 2.3 % in LL vs 5.8 % in PP (P = 0.20). There were significantly lower radiation doses used in PP (0.23 mGy/m² in LL vs 0.16 mGy/m² in PP, P = 0.008) without a difference in fluoroscopy times.

Conclusions Our analysis comparing LL to PP during ERCP shows comparable procedural and anesthetic outcomes, with significantly lower radiation exposure when performed in PP. We conclude that ERCP undertaken in the LL position is not inferior to PP, except for higher radiation exposure, and should be considered as a safe alternate position for patients undergoing ERCP.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 21. Juni 2021

Angenommen nach Revision: 10. November 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
14. April 2022

• References

• 1 Anriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781
• 2 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P. et al. Risk factors for complication following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicentre study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 793
• 3 Maydeo A, Patil GK. ERCP: Does patient position count?. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E1302-E1303
• 4 Watson WC. Direct vision of the ampulla of Vater through the gastrointestinal fibroscope. Lancet 1966; 1: 902-903
• 5 Ferreira L, Baron T. Comparison of safety and efficacy of ERCP performed with the patient in supine and PP. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2008; 67: 1037-1043
• 6 Park TY, Choi SY, Yang YJ. et al. The efficacy and safety of the left lateral position for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2017; 23: 296-302
• 7 Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR. et al. Adverse events associated with ERCP. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 32-47
• 8 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383-393
• 9 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C. et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-111
• 10 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
• 11 Moole H, Bechtold ML, Forcione D. et al. A meta-analysis and systematic review: Success of endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary stenting in patients with inoperable malignant biliary strictures and a failed ERCP. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e5154
• 12 Adler DG, Lieb JG, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2015; 110: 91-101
• 13 Alberca de Las Parras F, López-Picazo J, Pérez Romero S. et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The procedure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2018; 110: 658-666
• 14 Terruzzi V, Radaelli F, Meucci G. et al. Is the supine position as safe and effective as the PP for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? A prospective randomized study. . Endoscopy 2005; 37: 1211-1214
• 15 Batheja MJ, Harrison ME, Das A. et al. Optimal positioning for ERCP: efficacy and safety of ERCP in prone versus left lateral decubitus position. Int Scholar Res Notes 2013;
• 16 Sundaralingam P, Masson P, Bourke MJ. Early precut sphincterotomy does not increase risk during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with difficult biliary access: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1722-1729.e2
• 17 Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54: 425-434
• 18 Thiruvengadam NR, Forde KA, Ma GK. et al. Rectal indomethacin reduces pancreatitis in high- and low-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterol 2016; 151: 288-297.e4
• 19 Avila P, Holmes I, Kouanda A. et al. Practice patterns of post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis techniques in the United States: a survey of advanced endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 568-573.e2
• 20 Jorgensen JE, Rubenstein JH, Goodsitt MM. et al. Radiation doses to ERCP patients are significantly lower with experienced endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 58-65
• 21 Boix J, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V. Radiation dose to patients during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3: 140-144
• 22 Hayashi S, Nishida T, Matsubara T. et al. Radiation exposure dose and influencing factors during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0207539
• 23 Angsuwatcharakon P, Janjeurmat W, Krisanachinda A. et al. The difference in ocular lens equivalent dose to ERCP personnel between prone and left lateral decubitus positions: a prospective randomized study. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E969-E974