Efficacy and safety of ERCP in a low-volume hospital

13Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and aims: there is little scientific evidence on the outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed in low-volume hospitals; however, in our country, it is growing up its implementation. The objectives of our study were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique performed by two endoscopists with basic training in a center of this nature and analyze the learning curve in the first procedures. Patients and methods: single-center retrospective study of the first 200 ERCP performed in our hospital (analyzing the evolution between the first 100 and 100 following procedures), comparing them with the quality standards proposed in the literature. Results: from February 2009 to April 2011, we performed 200 ERCP in 169 patients, and the most common indications were: Choledocholithiasis (77 %), tumors (14.5 %) and other conditions (8.5 %). The cannulation rate rose from 85 % in the first 100 ERCP to 89 % in the next 100 procedures, clinical success from 81 % to 87 %, decreasing the post-ERCP acute pancreatitis rate from 11 % to 4 %, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from 3 % to 2 % and acute cholangitis from 4 % to 1 %. There was a death from a massive UGIB in a cirrhotic patient in the first group of patients and a case of biliary perforation resolved by surgery in the second one. Conclusions: the results obtained after performing 200 procedures support the ability to practice ERCP in low-volume hospitals obtaining levels of efficacy and safety in accordance with published quality standards. © 2013 ARÁN EDICIONES, S. L.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Riesco-López, J. M., Vázquez-Romero, M., Rizo-Pascual, J. M., Rivero-Fernández, M., Manzano-Fernández, R., González-Alonso, R., … Campos-Cantero, R. (2013). Efficacy and safety of ERCP in a low-volume hospital. Revista Espanola de Enfermedades Digestivas, 105(2), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.4321/S1130-01082013000200002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free