Appropriate time for selective biliary cannulation by trainees during ERCP – a randomized trial

Background and study aim: The allocation of sufficient time for trainees to attempt cannulation is necessary for learning and to ensure success with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training. However, it is important to balance the benefit to trainee practice against the potential risks to patients. The appropriate time for attempted cannulation by trainees remains unclear.

Patients and methods: Three different time limits (5, 10, 15 minutes) were set for cannulation attempts made by four trainees in patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP. Patients were randomly assigned to the 5-, 10-, or 15-minute groups in a 1:1:1 ratio. Rectal indomethacin was used in high-risk patients. The primary outcome was successful cannulation within the allocated time. Secondary outcomes included performance scores, overall success rate, and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP).

Results: A total of 256 patients were randomly assigned to the 5-minute (n = 84), 10-minute (n = 86), or 15-minute (n = 86) groups. Patients’ baseline characteristics were comparable. Success rates for selective bile duct cannulation by trainees were 43.8 %, 75.0 %, and 71.8 % in the 5-, 10-, and 15-minute groups, respectively (P < 0.001). Trainees’ self-reported performance scores and video assessment by an independent reviewer were comparable between the 10- and 15-minute groups, which were higher than the 5-minute group (both P  < 0.001). Trainers took over the cannulation procedure when trainees did not succeed within the allocated time. There was no significant difference in the overall success rates in cannulation between the three groups. No differences were noted in the use of rectal indomethacin and overall complication rates. Four patients in each group developed PEP (P = 0.996).

Conclusion: A time of 10 minutes was considered to be appropriate for trainees to attempt cannulation, with acceptable cannulation success rates and complications.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number (NCT01851226).

• References

• 1 Cotton PB. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: maximizing benefits and minimizing risks. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012; 22: 587-599
• 2 Jowell PS, Baillie J, Branch MS et al. Quantitative assessment of procedural competence. A prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 983-989
• 3 Itoi T, Gotoda T, Baron TH et al. Creation of simulated papillae for endoscopic sphincterotomy and papillectomy training by using in vivo and ex vivo pig model (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 793-800
• 4 Bittner 4th JG, Mellinger JD, Imam T et al. Face and construct validity of a computer-based virtual reality simulator for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 357-364
• 5 Liao WC, Leung JW, Wang HP et al. Coached practice using ERCP mechanical simulator improves trainees’ ERCP performance: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 799-805
• 6 Lim BS, Leung JW, Lee J et al. Effect of ERCP mechanical simulator (EMS) practice on trainees’ ERCP performance in the early learning period: US multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 300-306
• 7 Kuemmerle JF. Effective use of technology in gastroenterology training. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 881-884
• 8 Costamagna G, Familiari P, Marchese M et al. Endoscopic biliopancreatic investigations and therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 865-881
• 9 Heller SJ, Tokar JL. Current status of advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy training fellowships in the United States. Adv Med Educ Pract 2011; 11: 25-34
• 10 Friedman LS, Brandt LJ, Elta GH et al. Report of the multisociety task force on GI training. Gastroenterology 2009; 137: 1839-1843
• 11 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
• 12 Baillie J, Testoni PA. Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP?. Gut 2007; 56: 744-746
• 13 Kwek BE, Ang TL, Teo EK et al. Making ERCP training safe: a protocol-based strategy to minimize complications during selective biliary cannulation. J Interv Gastroenterol 2012; 2: 66-69
• 14 Swan MP, Alexander S, Moss A et al. Needle knife sphincterotomy does not increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with difficult biliary cannulation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 430-436
• 15 Nambu T, Ukita T, Shigoka H et al. Wire-guided selective cannulation of the bile duct with a sphincterotome: a prospective randomized comparative study with the standard method. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 109-115
• 16 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
• 17 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
• 18 Mariani A, Giussani A, Di Leo M et al. Guidewire biliary cannulation does not reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis compared with the contrast injection technique in low-risk and high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 339-346
• 19 Kobayashi G, Fujita N, Imaizumi K et al. Wire-guided biliary cannulation technique does not reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis: multicenter randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 295-302
• 20 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
• 21 Klibansky DA, Gordon SR, Gardner TB. Rectal indomethacin for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a valuable tool to keep in your back pocket. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 1387-1388
• 22 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
• 23 Kowalski T, Kanchana T, Pungpapong S. Perceptions of gastroenterology fellows regarding ERCP competency and training. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 345-349
• 24 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
• 25 Singhania R. ERCP: pearls of wisdom from master endoscopists. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 1255-1258
• 26 Bailey AA, Bourke MJ, Kaffes AJ et al. Needle-knife sphincterotomy: factors predicting its use and the relationship with post-ERCP pancreatitis (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 266-271
• 27 Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Deviere J et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline: prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 503-515
• 28 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
• 29 Ang TL, Cheng J, Khor JL et al. Guideline on training and credentialing in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Singapore Med J 2011; 52: 654-657
• 30 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, Rauws EA et al. Competence development in ERCP: the learning curve of novice trainees. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 949-955
• 31 Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 29-34