CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(07): E559-E562
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-105579
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Does the presence of a trainee compromise success of biliary cannulation at ERCP?

John Warwick Frost
Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology, Dudley, UK nad Northern Ireland
,
Arun Kurup
Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology, Dudley, UK nad Northern Ireland
,
Sharan Shetty
Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology, Dudley, UK nad Northern Ireland
,
Neil Fisher
Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Gastroenterology, Dudley, UK nad Northern Ireland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 06 November 2016

accepted after revision 01 February 2017

Publication Date:
23 June 2017 (online)

Abstract

Background and study aims Findings in the literature are conflicting on whether trainee involvement in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures is detrimental to cannulation success rates. We addressed this in a prospective study, where cannulation success with or without trainee presence was the primary outcome measure.

Patients and methods We prospectively recorded data on 2 senior endoscopists and their trainees over an 18-month period for ERCPs in patients with a virgin ampulla. Presence or absence of a trainee at ERCP procedures was pragmatic, reflecting their other service or training commitments or annual leave. For trainee presence, the training protocol allowed them 6 minutes of supervised time in which to achieve biliary cannulation after reaching the ampulla. Study outcome measures included cannulation success, time to cannulation, technique, whether this was achieved independently by the trainee, and complications.

Results There were 219 procedures recorded and analyzed (134 with a trainee, 85 without). Three trainees were involved. Selective biliary cannulation was achieved in 201 (92 %) of cases. When a trainee was present, cannulation was successful in 122/134 procedures (91 %), compared to 79/85 (93 %) with a senior endoscopist alone (P = 0.8, Fisher’s exact test). Mean time to biliary cannulation with a trainee present was 7 minutes, compared with 5 minutes with no trainee. Mean time for successful independent cannulation by the trainee was 4 minutes, and 9 minutes for a consultant following a trainee’s attempt. There were no serious adverse events.

Conclusion Our study shows that with this training protocol, involvement of a trainee on a routine secondary care ERCP list does not impair biliary cannulation success, and does not prolong a subsequent attempt by the senior endoscopist if initially unsuccessful. These findings support the involvement of trainees in routine ERCP lists with this training protocol.

 
  • References

  • 1 Wilkinson M. et al. ERCP – The Way Forward: A standards Framework. BSG. 2014
  • 2 Williams EJ, Taylor S, Lombard M. 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
  • 3 Williams EJ, Ogollah R, Lombard M. et al. What predicts failed cannulation and therapy at ERCP? Results of a large-scale multicenter analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 674-683
  • 4 Peng C, Nietert PJ, Romagnuolo J. et al. Predicting native papilla biliary cannulation success using a multinational Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Quality Network. BMC Gastroenterol 2013; 13: 147
  • 5 Shekhar C, Shetty S, Fisher NC. PTU-002 Ercp Cannulation; Evaluation of a Wire-led technique for biliary access in a training centre. Gut 2014; 63: A37-A38
  • 6 Wicks ACB, Robertson GSM, Veitch PS. Structured training and assessment in ERCP has become essential for the Calman era. Gut 1999; 45: 154-156
  • 7 Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Roel JP. et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 425-434
  • 8 Baillie J, Testoni PA. Are we meeting the standards set for ERCP?. Gut 2007; 56: 744-746
  • 9 DeBenedet AT, Elmunzer BJ, Schoenfeld PS. et al. Intraprocedural quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1696-1704
  • 10 Ekkelenkamp VE, De Man R, Koch A. et al. Prospective evaluation of ERCP performance: Results of a nationwide quality registry. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 503-507
  • 11 Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J. et al. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 868-874
  • 12 Sheppard DP, Craddock SJ, Wilkinson ML. et al. ERCP cannulation success benchmarking: Implications for certification and validation. Frontline Gastroenterol DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2014-100473.
  • 13 Voiosu T, Bengus A, Mateescu B. et al. Trainee caseload correlates with ERCP success rates but not with procedure-related complications: results from a prospective study (the QUASIE cohort). Endosc Int Open 2016; 04: E409-E414
  • 14 Pan Y, Zhao L, Guo X. et al. Appropriate time for selective biliary cannulation by trainees during ERCP – a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 688-695
  • 15 Jowell PS, Baillie J, Phillips Bute B. et al. Quantitative Assessment of Procedural Competence: A Prospective Study of Training in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Ann Intern Med 1996; 125: 983-989
  • 16 Verma D, Gostout CJ, Adler DG. 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. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2007; 65: 394-400
  • 17 Ramakrishnan S, Crosbie J, Oppong K. et al. One year prospective audit of ERCP across one Hospital Trust. Gut 2005; 54 (Suppl. 02) a1-a117