Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(03): E326-E337
DOI: 10.1055/a-1068-9153
Original article
Owner and Copyright © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2020

Telepresence-teleguidance to facilitate training and quality assurance in ERCP: a health economic modeling approach

Johanna Brinne Roos
1   Innovation Centre, Division of Innovation and Development, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Per Bergenzaun
2   Department of Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Kristina Groth
1   Innovation Centre, Division of Innovation and Development, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Lars Lundell
2   Department of Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
3   CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Sweden
4   Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsloews Vej 4, 5000 Odense, Denmark
,
Urban Arnelo
2   Department of Surgery, Centre for Digestive Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
3   CLINTEC, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm Sweden
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 13 May 2019

accepted after revision 16 October 2019

Publication Date:
21 February 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The aims of this study was to document the clinical and training relevance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) teleguidance (as a clinical model for applied telemedicine) with health economic modeling methodologies.

Methods Probabilities and consequences of complications after ERCP performed by either a novice-trainee or supported through teleguidance (TM) by an expert formed the basis of the health economic model.

Results The main clinical and economic outcomes originated from the base case scenario representing a low-volume center. In the cohort the patient age was 62 years, 58 % were females, the expert was doing ≥ 250 ERCPs per year and 50 for the novice-trainee. The expert knowledge transferred was set to 50 % and the average complexity grade to 1.98. Given a willingness to pay threshold of 56,180 USD/ quality-adjusted life years (QALY), the probability of cost-effectiveness of TM assistance was 98.9 %. The probability of a QALY gain for patients having an ERCP, to which was added TM, was 91.6 %. Adding TM saved on an average 111.2 USD (95 % CI 959 to 1021 SEK) per patient, and remained cost-effective basically insensitive to the level of willingness to pay.

Conclusion Teleguidance during an ERCP procedure has the potential to be the prefered option in many low- to medium-volume hospitals. The main mechanisms behind these effects are positive impact on several adverse patient outcomes, QALY increase, and decreased costs. TM should be considered for integration into future teaching curriculums in advanced upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Appendix

 

  • References

  • 1 Boanca C, Rafiq A, Tamariz F. et al. Remote video management for intraoperative consultation and surgical telepresence. Telemed J E Health 2007; 13: 603-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Haidegger T, Szandor J, Benyo Z. Surgery in space: the future of robotic telesurgery. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 681-690
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Lee SP, Lee HL, Hahm JS. et al. International live endoscopic multichannel demonstration using superfast broadband internet connections. Clin Endosc 2012; 45: 73-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shimizu S, Itaba S, Yada S. et al. Significance of telemedicine for video image transmission of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography procedures. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2011; 18: 366-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Barkun AN, Adam V, Martel M. et al. Partially covered self-expandable metal stents versus polyethylene stents for malignant biliary obstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 29: 377-383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McKaigney J, Sandha GS. The clinical impact and cost implications of endoscopic ultrasound on the use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 138-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Pahlsson HI, Groth K, Permert J. et al. Telemedicine: an important aid to perform high-quality endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in low-volume centers. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 357-361
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G. et al. Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1781-1788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Barthet N, Lesavre A, Desjeux M. et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy: results from a single tertiary referral center. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 991-997
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Boender J, Nix GA, de Ridder MA. et al. Endoscopic papillotomy for common bile duct stones: factors influencing the complication rate. Endoscopy 1994; 26: 209-216
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chen YK, Foliente RL, Santoro MJ. et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy-induced pancreatitis: increased risk associated with nondilated bile ducts and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Am J Gastroenterol 1994; 89: 327-333
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Choudari CP, Sherman S, Fogel EL. et al. Success of ERCP at a referral center after a previously unsuccessful attempt. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 478-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S. et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I. et al. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: patient-related and operative risk factors. Endoscopy 2002; 34: 286-292
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Deans GT, Sedman P, Martin DF. et al. Are complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy age related?. Gut 1997; 41: 545-548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dickinson RJ, Davies S. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia: the role of operative and patient factors. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998; 10: 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S. et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Köklü S, Parlak E, Yüksel O. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the elderly: A prospective and comparative study. Age Ageing 2005; 34: 572-577
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Leese T, Neoptolemos JP, Carr-Locke DL. Successes, failures, early complications and their management following endoscopic sphincterotomy: results in 394 consecutive patients from a single centre. Br J Surg 1985; 72: 215-219
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Harewood GC, Baron TH, LeRoy AJ. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative strategies for palliation of distal biliary obstruction after a failed cannulation attempt. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1701-1707
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Brown LM, Rogers SJ, Cello J. et al. Cost-effective treatment of patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis and possible common bile duct stones. J Am Coll Surg 2011; 212: 1049-1060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Alhayaf N, Lalor E, Bain V. et al. The clinical impact and cost implication of endoscopic ultrasound on use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a Canadian university hospital. Can J Gastroenterol 2008; 22: 138-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Vergel YB, Chilcott J, Kaltenthaler E. et al. Economic evaluation of MR cholangiopancreatography compared to diagnostic ERCP for the investigation of biliary tree obstruction. Int J Surg 2006; 4: 12-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sullivan PW, Slejko JF, Sculpher MJ. et al. Catalogue of EQ-5D scores for the United Kingdom. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 800-804
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC. et al. Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 652-656
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tzovaras G, Shukla P, Kow L. et al. What are the risks of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?. Aust N Z J Surg 2000; 70: 778-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tanner AR. ERCP: present practice in a single region. Suggested standards for monitoring performance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1996; 8: 145-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Suissa A, Yassin K, Lavy A. et al. Outcome and early complications of ERCP: a prospective single center study. Hepatogastroenterology 2005; 52: 352-355
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Sherman S, Ruffolo TA, Hawes RH. et al. Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy. A prospective series with emphasis on the increased risk associated with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction and nondilated bile ducts. Gastroenterology 1991; 101: 1068-1075
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Bulling D. et al. Analysis of the risk factors associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques: preliminary results of a prospective study, with emphasis on the reduced risk of acute pancreatitis with low-dose anticoagulation treatment. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 10-19
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ong TZ, Khor JL, Selamat DS. et al. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the post-MRCP era: a tertiary center experience. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 5209-5212
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A. et al. Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 417-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G. et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 1-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lal D, Lane M, Wong P. Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. N Z Med J 2003; 116: U496
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Statistics Sweden. [Online] Available: http://www.scb.se/en_/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subject-area/population/population-composition/population-statistics/#c_undefined
    PubMed
  • 36 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Enochsson L, Thulin A, Osterberg J. et al. The Swedish Registry of Gallstone Surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks): A nationwide registry for quality assurance of gallstone surgery. JAMA Surg 2013; 148: 471-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Anvari M. Remote telepresence surgery: the Canadian experience. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 537-541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Boanca A, Rafiq F, Tamariz V. et al. Remote video management for intraoperative consultation and surgical telepresence. Telemed J E Health 2007; 13: 603-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Barkun AN, Adam V, Martel M. et al. Partially covered self-expandable metal stents versus polyethylene stents for malignant biliary obstruction: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 29: 377-383
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bhatt A, Abe S, Umaravel A. et al. Video-based supervision for training of endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 711-716
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar