Trainee caseload correlates with ERCP success rates but not with procedure-related complications: results from a prospective study (the QUASIE cohort)

Background and study aim: Endoscopy society guidelines recommend a minimum of 200 cases for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) trainees in order to ensure competency and quality standards. However, there are few data regarding procedure-related complication rates and added risk for patients during this learning process. We aimed to evaluate the correlation between trainee caseload and procedure- and patient-related outcomes in an ERCP training program, and to assess the risk factors for ERCP failure and complications.

Patients and methods: We conducted a prospective study of all procedures performed in the ERCP training program at Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania. Relevant data for each procedure (diagnosis, cannulation method, outcome, and complications during the following 30 days) as well as operator experience were documented. Univariable and multivariable analysis of the risk factors for ERCP failure and complications was done by analyzing the procedures completed by expert and trainee endoscopists during the study period.

Results: The analysis included 534 ERCPs performed by 1 expert and 3 supervised trainees during a 12-month period. Technical success rates were comparable in the trainee and expert groups, and no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to procedure-related complications and mortality. The more experienced trainees had a better chance of successfully completing a procedure (odds ratio of 1.1 for each additional 10 ERCPs performed), but post-ERCP complications were unrelated to individual trainee caseloads on multivariable analysis.

Conclusion: The ERCP technical success rate increases with trainee experience, reflecting the learning curve of individual operators. However, the complication rates are similar across different levels of operator experience, indicating that ERCPs performed by supervised trainees imply no additional risk for patients.

• References

• 1 Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A et al. Outcome and early complications of ERCP: a prospective single center study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005; 52: 352-355
• 2 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
• 3 Ekkelenkamp VE, de Man RA, Ter Borg F. Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: results of a nationwide quality registry. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 503-507
• 4 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
• 5 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
• 6 Verma D, Gostout CJ, Petersen BT et al. Establishing a true assessment of endoscopic competence in ERCP during training and beyond: a single-operator learning curve for deep biliary cannulation in patients with native papillary anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 394-400
• 7 Chutkan RK, Ahmad AS, Cohen J et al. ERCP core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 361-376
• 8 Ang TL, Cheng J, Khor JL et al. Guideline on training and credentialing in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Singapore Med J 2011; 52: 654-657
• 9 Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 868-874
• 10 Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 37: 383-393
• 11 Jowell PS. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: toward a better understanding of competence. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 755-757
• 12 Verma D, Gostout CJ, Petersen BT et al. Establishing a true assessment of endoscopic competence in ERCP during training and beyond: a single-operator learning curve for deep biliary cannulation in patients with native papillary anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 394-400
• 13 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, Rauws EA et al. Competence development in ERCP: the learning curve of novice trainees. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 949-955
• 14 Katsinelos P, Mimidis K, Paroutoglou G et al. Needleknife papillotomy: a safe and effective technique in experienced hands. Hepatogastroenterology 2004; 51: 349-352
• 15 Varadarajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 338-347
• 16 Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 892-897