Introduction
Selective deep cannulation is a critical step for the performance of endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The incidence of difficult biliary cannulation has
been reported in many studies [1 ]
[2 ]
[3 ], ranging from 10 % to 40 % in patients with native papilla. Difficult cannulation
is an independent risk factor for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) [4 ]. PEP incidence has been reported to be 8 %–12 % in patients with difficult cannulation
[3 ]
[5 ], whereas it is 3 %–5 % in patients without difficult cannulation [4 ]. When the cannulation proves difficult, advanced cannulation techniques are often
necessary, including the double-guidewire technique, transpancreatic sphincterotomy,
or needle-knife precut [6 ].
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has proposed the 5–5–1 criteria
for the definition of difficult cannulation: > 5 minutes spent attempting to cannulate,
> 5 contacts with the papilla to cannulate, > 1 unintended PD cannulation or opacification
[7 ]. The clear definition of difficult cannulation is important for making decisions
during or after ERCP, including determining the appropriate time to transfer to advanced
cannulation techniques and whether prophylactic methods should be administered to
reduce the risk of PEP [1 ]
[8 ]. Although the 5–5–1 criteria [7 ] have been widely used during ERCP practice or in relevant studies, it remains unclear
whether these criteria are suitable for cannulation procedures involving trainees.
Because of inexperienced manipulation of the scope and accessories, the involvement
of trainees generally increases the overall cannulation time and number of cannulation
attempts, which are two important variables in the criteria of difficult cannulation.
Thus, we hypothesized that the definition of difficult cannulation in trainee-involved
procedures might be different from the traditional 5–5–1 criteria.
To develop the criteria of difficult cannulation in trainee-involved ERCP, we retrospectively
analyzed the data associated with cannulation procedures with or without trainee involvement.
We also compared the proportion of difficult cannulation, PEP incidence, and the frequency
of advanced cannulation techniques in patients with predicted difficult cannulation
between the proposed criteria in trainee-involved procedures and the traditional 5–5–1
criteria in procedures without trainee involvement.
Methods
Patients
This was a retrospective study including consecutive patients with native papilla
who underwent elective ERCP at Xijing Hospital in China. On average, 1300 ERCP procedures
are performed each year at this tertiary center. Patient-related and procedure-related
data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. The study protocol was
approved by the Institutional Review Board of Xijing Hospital (KY20202067-F-1).
Among all originally approached patients, those not providing consent and those without
a native papilla were not included in the study. Patients were also excluded if they
were considered unsuitable for this study of difficult cannulation, such as: 1) with
indications of major or minor pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation; 2) without attempts
of cannulation due to inaccessible papilla; 3) undergoing cannulation via papillary
fistula; 4) with duodenal stenosis or anatomical deformity secondary to prior surgery.
Five trainers from our center were involved in the study. All of them had experience
of more than 1500 ERCPs and completed 150–350 ERCPs per year. A total of 28 trainees
involved in the 1-year ERCP training were involved in the study. All of the trainees
specialized in the gastrointestinal field and had no prior ERCP experience (see Table 1 s in the online-only Supplementary material). Before performing biliary cannulation
in patients, trainees attended didactic lectures on ERCP, which included anatomy of
the pancreaticobiliary system, introduction to ERCP, and basic techniques including
handling of the duodenoscope and accessories, selective cannulation, contrast injection,
and sphincterotomy. They then practiced insertion of the duodenoscope, manipulation
of accessories, and observed clinical ERCP cases for approximately 100 cases before
starting cannulation training. In about the first 20 cases, new trainees began their
cannulation training in patients with previous endoscopic sphincterotomy, before being
allowed to attempt cannulation in patients with native papilla.
ERCP procedures
ERCP was performed with propofol sedation or general anesthesia. Duodenal relaxation
was achieved with scopolamine butylbromide (Buscopan, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim
am Rhein, Germany). Based on whether trainees were involved in the initial cannulation
procedures, patients were divided into the trainee group or the non-trainee group. During
cannulation training, trainees were allowed to attempt biliary cannulation for 10
minutes under the supervision of one of five experienced trainers (including oral
instructions and/or hands-on assistance), as described in our previous report [9 ]. An experienced endoscopist would take over the scope and continue the cannulation
procedure if the trainee failed to cannulate within 10 minutes.
Selective biliary cannulation was initially performed with a guidewire-assisted cannulation
technique. Advanced cannulation methods were chosen at the discretion of the experienced
endoscopist, and included double-guidewire cannulation, precut with needle-knife or
dual knife, transpancreatic or over-the-stent precut. After successful cannulation
was finally achieved by trainees themselves or by trainers, trainees were allowed
to perform further post-cannulation manipulations under the supervision of trainers.
Outcomes
The primary outcome of the study was difficult cannulation. Cannulation was considered
difficult if the values of cannulation time, cannulation attempts, or inadvertent
PD cannulation exceeded the 75 % percentile of each cannulation-related variable.
Secondary outcomes included incidences of PEP and overall adverse events, and the
proportion of procedures requiring advanced cannulation methods.
Definition
The total cannulation time was counted from the beginning of contact with the papilla
to deep cannulation of the common bile duct (CBD). A cannulation attempt was defined
as the sphincterotome touching the papilla for at least 5 seconds.
PEP and other ERCP-related adverse events (bleeding, infection, cholangitis, and perforation)
together with severity grades were classified based on the American Society for Gastrointestinal
Endoscopy criteria [10 ]. Rectal indomethacin (100 mg), prophylactic PD stent placement, and/or aggressive
hydration with Ringer’s solution could be used for PEP prevention at the discretion
of the endoscopists.
Statistical analyses
Categorical variables were described as frequency rates and percentages with 95 %
confidence intervals (CIs). Continuous variables were described as mean and standard
deviation (SD) when variables were normally distributed, or median and interquartile
range (IQR) when variables were not normally distributed. The chi-squared test was
used to compare categorical variables. Results were presented as odds ratios (ORs)
with 95 %CIs, which were computed using univariate regression. Nonparametric Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
test or Student’s t test was used to compare continuous variables. In an effort to reduce potential bias,
a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. Propensity scores to determine
matched pairs between the groups were created using nine variables that could potentially
influence the cannulation difficulty: age, sex, body mass index, ERCP indications
(CBD stone, biliary stricture, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, and others),
previous history of acute pancreatitis, and periampullary diverticulum. The propensity
scores were then calculated using a logistic regression model. Patients were matched
in a 1:1 ratio using a caliper width of 0.01 with nearest-neighbor matching without
replacement.
Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 22.0 (IBM Corp, Armonk,
New York, USA) and figures were generated using GraphPad Prism 8.02 or Python 3.7.
All tests were two-sided, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Patients
From January 2014 to December 2019, 4894 patients who underwent ERCP and had available
data related to cannulation procedures were screened for the study. After screening,
479 patients were excluded, including 259 patients with indications for PD cannulation,
13 with an inaccessible papilla, 61 with cannulation via the papillary fistula, and
146 with duodenal stenosis or altered anatomy secondary to prior surgery. Finally,
4415 patients were included in the study, with 1742 patients in the trainee group
and 2673 in the non-trainee group. After PSM, there were 1596 patients in each group
(Fig. 1 s ). Baseline characteristics before and after PSM are shown in [Table 1 ]. Background demographic details were similar in the two groups. The most common
indication for ERCP was CBD stones (about 75 %).
Table 1
Baseline characteristics before and after propensity score matching.
Unmatched patients
Patients after PSM
Trainee group
Non-trainee group
OR (95 %CI)
P[* ]
Trainee group
Non-trainee group
OR (95 %CI)
P
[* ]
Age, median (IQR), years
61 (49–70)
63 (51–74)
< 0.001
61 (50–70)
61 (48–72)
0.74
Female, n (%)
907 (52.1)
1358 (50.8)
1.05
0.41
831 (52.1)
848 (53.1)
0.96
0.55
BMI, median (IQR), kg/m2
22.5 (20.4–25.0)
22.5 (20.3–24.8)
0.41
22.5 (20.4–25.0)
22.5 (20.4–24.9)
0.87
CBD stone, n (%)
1297 (74.5)
1860 (69.6)
1.27
< 0.001
1186 (74.3)
1210 (75.8)
0.92
0.33
Biliary stricture, n (%)
255 (14.6)
539 (20.2)
0.71
< 0.001
247 (15.5)
230 (14.4)
1.09
0.40
Suspected SOD, n (%)
41 (2.4)
33 (1.2)
1.93
0.005
32 (2.0)
29 (1.8)
1.11
0.70
Others, n (%)
149 (8.6)
241 (9.0)
0.94
0.60
131 (8.2)
127 (8.0)
1.03
0.80
History of acute pancreatitis, n (%)
37 (2.1)
67 (2.5)
0.84
0.41
110 (6.9)
108 (6.8)
1.02
0.89
Periampullary diverticulum, n (%)
497 (28.5)
550 (20.6)
1.54
< 0.001
435 (27.3)
410 (25.7)
1.08
0.32
PSM, propensity score matching; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile
range; BMI, body mass index; CBD, common bile duct; SOD, sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.
*
P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Cannulation procedure and ERCP-related adverse events
Procedure-related variables and adverse events are shown in [Table 2 ] and Table 2 s . The overall cannulation success was 99.4 %. Cannulation-related variables were quite
different between the two groups. Compared with the non-trainee group, patients in
the trainee group had a longer median cannulation time (7.5 [IQR 2.2–15.3] vs. 2.0
[IQR 0.6–5.2]; P < 0.001), more median cannulation attempts (5 [IQR 2–10] vs. 2 [IQR 1–4]; P < 0.001), and more median inadvertent PD cannulation (0 [IQR 0–2] vs. 0 [IQR 0–1];
P < 0.001) ([Fig. 1 ]).
Table 2
Procedure-related variables and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related
adverse events.
Characteristic
Overall
Trainee group
Non-trainee group
OR (95 %CI)
P[* ]
Overall cannulation success, n (%)
3173 (99.4)
1586 (99.4)
1587 (99.4)
0.90 (0.37–2.22)
0.82
Successful cannulation of trainees, n (%)
898 (56.3)
Standard cannulation, n (%)
2650 (83.0)
1276 (79.9)
1374 (86.1)
0.64 (0.53–0.78)
< 0.001
Advanced cannulation method, n (%)
542 (17.0)
320 (20.1)
222 (13.9)
1.55 (1.29–1.87)
< 0.001
180 (5.6)
135 (8.5)
45 (2.8)
3.19 (2.26–4.50)
< 0.001
374 (11.7)
196 (12.3)
178 (11.2)
1.12 (0.90–1.38)
0.32
201 (6.3)
126 (7.9)
75 (4.7)
1.74 (1.30–2.33)
< 0.001
173 (5.4)
70 (4.4)
103 (6.5)
0.67 (0.49–0.91)
0.01
Total cannulation time, median (IQR), minutes
3.4 (1.0–11.4)
7.5 (2.2–15.3)
2.0 (0.6–5.2)
< 0.001
Cannulation attempts, median (IQR), n
3 (1–7)
5 (2–10)
2 (1–4)
< 0.001
Inadvertent PD cannulation, median (IQR), n
0 (0–1)
0 (0–2)
0 (0–1)
< 0.001
PEP prophylaxis measures, n (%)
286 (9.0)
207 (13.0)
79 (4.9)
2.86 (2.19–3.75)
< 0.001
1906 (59.7)
1116 (69.9)
790 (49.5)
2.37 (2.05–2.74)
< 0.001
Overall adverse events, n (%)
257 (8.1)
122 (7.6)
135 (8.5)
0.90 (0.69–1.16)
0.40
182 (5.7)
86 (5.4)
96 (6.0)
0.89 (0.66–1.20)
0.45
141 (4.4)
69 (4.3)
72 (4.5)
0.96 (0.68–1.34)
0.80
41 (1.3)
17 (1.1)
24 (1.5)
0.71 (0.38–1.32)
0.27
41 (1.3)
28 (1.8)
13 (0.8)
2.17 (1.12–4.21)
0.02
57 (1.8)
22 (1.4)
35 (2.2)
0.62 (0.36–1.07)
0.08
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; DGW, double-guidewire; IQR, interquartile
range; PD, pancreatic duct; PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography.
*
P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Fig. 1 Cannulation-related variables of patients in the trainee and non-trainee groups after
propensity score matching. IQR, interquartile range; PD, pancreatic duct.
In the trainee group, successful cannulation was achieved by trainee alone in 56.3 %
(898/1596) of patients. The median time, and cannulation attempts, and inadvertent
PD cannulation were 2.6 (IQR 1.1–5.2) minutes, 2 (IQR 1–4), and 0 (IQR 0–1), respectively.
For the remaining 698 patients with failed cannulation by trainees within 10 minutes,
the trainers took over the procedure. The median time, cannulation attempts, and inadvertent
PD cannulation of successful cannulations were 16.7 (IQR 12.7–25.6) minutes, 11 (IQR
8–15), and 1 (IQR 0–4), respectively, and the final success rate was 98.6 % (688/698)
by trainers after trainees failed.
Patients in the trainee group received more advanced cannulation methods (20.1 % [95 %CI
18.1 %–22.1 %] vs. 13.9 % [95 %CI 12.2 %–15.7 %]), including double-guidewire technique
(8.5 % [95 %CI 7.1 %–9.9 %] vs. 2.8 % [95 %CI 2.1 %–3.8 %]) and transpancreatic precut
(7.9 % [95 %CI 6.6 %–9.3 %] vs. 4.7 % [95 %CI 3.7 %–5.9 %]). Although prophylactic
PD stent (13.0 % [95 %CI 11.4 %–14.7 %] vs. 4.9 % [95 %CI 3.9 %–6.1 %]) and rectal
indomethacin (69.9 % [95 %CI 67.6 %–72.2 %] vs. 49.5 % [95 %CI 47.0 %–52.0 %]) were
more frequently used in the trainee group compared with the non-trainee group, the
PEP incidence was similar between the two groups (5.4 % [95 %CI 4.3 %–6.6 %] vs. 6.0 %
[95 %CI 4.9 %–7.3 %]; OR 0.89 [95 %CI 0.66–1.20]).
Proposed difficult cannulation criteria
According to the current criteria for difficult cannulation (5–5–1) [7 ], the proportion of cannulation procedures that were difficult was significantly
higher in the trainee group than in the non-trainee group (61.9 % [95 %CI 59.5 %–64.3 %]
vs. 31.8 % [95 %CI 29.5 %–34.2 %]). However, the incidence of PEP (6.5 % [95 %CI 5.0 %–8.2 %]
vs. 9.8 % [95 %CI 7.4 %–12.8 %]; OR 0.63 [95 %CI 0.43–0.93]) and the frequency of
advanced cannulation methods (31.2 % [95 %CI 28.3 %–34.2 %] vs. 35.8 % [95 %CI 31.7 %–40.2 %];
OR 0.81 [95 %CI 0.65–1.02]) in patients with difficult cannulation were or tended
to be lower in the trainee group than in the non-trainee group ([Table 3 ]).
Table 3
Difficult cannulation in the two groups based on 5–5-1 criteria.
Trainee group
Non-trainee group
OR (95 %CI)
P[* ]
Difficult cannulation, n (%)
988 (61.9)
508 (31.8)
3.48 (3.01–4.03)
< 0.001
64 (6.5)
50 (9.8)
0.63 (0.43–0.93)
0.02
308 (31.2)
182 (35.8)
0.81 (0.65–1.02)
0.07
128 (13.0)
31 (6.1)
2.29 (1.52–3.44)
< 0.001
191 (19.3)
152 (29.9)
0.56 (0.44–0.72)
< 0.001
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis; ERCP, endoscopic
retrograde cholangiopancreatography; DGW, double-guidewire.
*
P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Percentiles of cannulation procedures in the two groups are described in [Fig. 1 ]. The 75 % percentile of cannulation time, cannulation attempts, and inadvertent
PD cannulation in the non-trainee group were 5.2 minutes, 4, and 1, respectively.
These three values of cannulation procedures were almost the same as the current 5–5-1
criteria of difficult cannulation. For the 1596 patients in the trainee group, the
75 % percentile of successful cannulation could be achieved within 15.3 minutes, 10
cannulation attempts, or 2 inadvertent PD cannulations. Therefore, we proposed that
15–10–2 criteria could be used to define difficult cannulation in the trainee group. Percentages
of procedures that exceeded the 15–10–2 and 5–5-1 criteria are shown in Fig. 2 s .
When the 15–10–2 criteria were used in the trainee group and the 5–5–1 criteria were
used in the non-trainee group, the proportion of difficult cannulation was 35.5 %
(95 %CI 33.2 %–37.9 %) in the trainee group and 31.8 % (95 %CI 29.5 %–34.2 %) in the
non-trainee group (OR 1.18 [95 %CI 1.02–1.37]). There was a similar incidence of PEP
(7.8 % [95 %CI 5.7 %–10.3 %] vs. 9.8 % [95 %CI 7.4 %–12.8 %]; OR 0.77 [95 %CI 0.50–1.18])
and overall adverse events (10.4 % [95 %CI 8.0 %–13.2 %] vs. 13.6 % [95 %CI 10.7 %–16.9 %];
OR 0.74 [95 %CI 0.51–1.07]) between the two groups. There were more uses of advanced
cannulation methods (44.6 % [95 %CI 40.5 %–48.8 %] vs. 35.8 % [95 %CI 31.7 %–40.2 %];
OR 1.44 [95 %CI 1.13–1.85]) in the trainee group ([Table 4, ]
Table 3 s ).
Table 4
Performance of procedure-related variables with the 15–10–2 criteria in the trainee
group and the 5–5–1 criteria in the non-training group.
Trainee group (n = 1596)[1 ]
Non-trainee group (n = 1596)[2 ]
OR (95 %CI)
P[3 ]
Difficult cannulation
Non-difficult cannulation
OR (95 %CI)
P[4 ]
Difficult cannulation
Non-difficult cannulation
OR (95 %CI)
P
[4 ]
Advanced cannulation methods, n (%)
253 (44.6)
67 (6.5)
11.57
< 0.001
182 (35.8)
40 (3.7)
14.63
< 0.001
1.44
0.003
94 (16.6)
41 (4.0)
4.79
< 0.001
31 (6.1)
14 (1.3)
4.99
< 0.001
3.06
< 0.001
167 (29.5)
29 (2.8)
14.40
< 0.001
152 (29.9)
26 (2.4)
17.44
< 0.001
0.98
0.87
PEP prophylaxis measures, n (%)
159 (28.0)
48 (4.7)
7.97
< 0.001
63 (12.4)
16 (1.5)
9.49
< 0.001
2.75
< 0.001
449 (79.2)
667 (64.8)
2.07
< 0.001
290 (57.1)
500 (46.0)
1.56
< 0.001
2.86
< 0.001
Overall adverse events, n (%)
59 (10.4)
63 (6.1)
1.78
0.002
69 (13.6)
66 (6.1)
2.43
< 0.001
0.74
0.11
44 (7.8)
42 (4.1)
1.98
0.002
50 (9.8)
46 (4.2)
2.47
< 0.001
0.77
0.23
33 (5.8)
36 (3.5)
1.71
0.03
37 (7.3)
35 (3.2)
2.36
< 0.001
0.79
0.33
11 (1.9)
6 (0.6)
3.37
0.01
13 (2.6)
11 (1.0)
2.57
0.018
0.75
0.49
11 (1.9)
17 (1.7)
1.18
0.68
7 (1.4)
6 (0.6)
2.52
0.087
1.42
0.47
12 (2.1)
10 (1.0)
2.20
0.06
16 (3.1)
19 (1.7)
1.83
0.075
0.67
0.29
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals; DGW, double-guidewire; PEP, post-ERCP pancreatitis;
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; PD, pancreatic duct.
1 Difficult cannulation was defined by the 15–10–2 criteria
2 Difficult cannulation was defined by the 5–5–1 criteria.
3
P value for the comparisons of difficult cannulation columns between the trainee and
non-trainee groups.
4
P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Simplification of the two criteria
To simplify the two criteria, the number of cannulation attempts was removed, as it
was significantly correlated with overall cannulation time in the two groups (Fig. 3 s ). The simplified 5–1 criteria (5 minutes for cannulation time and 1 inadvertent PD
cannulation) were comparable to the traditional 5–5–1 criteria with regard to the
proportion of difficult cannulation, PEP incidence, and the rate of using advanced
cannulation methods in the non-trainee group (all P > 0.1). In the trainee group, the simplified 15–2 criteria (15 minutes for cannulation
time and 2 unintended PD cannulations) were also comparable to the 15–10–2 criteria
in PEP incidence and the rate of using advanced cannulation methods ([Fig. 2, ]
Table 4 s ).
Fig. 2 Comparisons of standard/proposed criteria with simplified criteria regarding proportion
of difficult cannulation, incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
pancreatitis (PEP), and rate of advanced cannulation techniques (defined by nonstandard
cannulation with wire-guided sphincterotome, such as double-guidewire cannulation,
precut with needle-knife or dual knife, transpancreatic or over-the-stent precut)
after propensity score matching.
Discussion
This study first used 75 percentiles of cannulation-related variables as cutoff values
to define difficult cannulation. The analysis showed that difficult cannulation could
be defined by 5–4–1 criteria in 1596 patients undergoing cannulation without trainee
involvement. This result was almost the same as the traditional 5–5-1 criteria, with
a similar proportion of cannulations that were difficult (31.8 %) and similar PEP
incidence (9.8 %) in patients with difficult cannulation compared with previous studies
[3 ]
[5 ].
Compared with the non-trainee group, the trainee group had longer cannulation times,
more cannulation attempts, more inadvertent PD cannulation, and a higher frequency
of using advanced cannulation methods. It could be expected therefore that more PEP
might occur in the trainee group. However, PEP prophylaxis was used in more patients
in the trainee group (rectal indomethacin 69.9 % vs. 49.5 %; PD stent 13.0 % vs. 4.9 %),
and was generally based on the current criteria of difficult cannulation and followed
the recommendations of several guidelines [1 ]
[4 ]. As a result of this effective prevention in the current study, PEP incidence in
the trainee group was not significantly different from that in the non-trainee group. Furthermore,
overall PEP incidence in this study was 5.7 %, which was comparable to the 3 %–12 %
in previous reports [4 ]
[9 ]
[11 ]
[12 ]
[13 ]
[14 ].
Some circumstances can potentially impact the results of the difficulty of cannulation.
For the procedures with trainee involvement, individual performance competency of
trainees [15 ] and lifetime procedure count [16 ] may affect the difficulty of cannulation. Individual performance competency was
difficult to evaluate objectively, and lifetime procedure counts were not available
owing to the respective nature of this study. The proposed 15–10–2 criteria of difficult
cannulation in trainee-involved procedures might be biased by the cannulation competency
of different trainees or by the different stages of ERCP training.
The current study was based on a prospectively maintained ERCP database in a tertiary
hospital, which included the information on whether trainees were involved in initial
cannulation, data related to the cannulation procedure, as well as baseline characteristics
of trainees. Unfortunately, information on when and which trainees participated in
the cannulation were not routinely recorded, which made it impossible to draw a learning
curve of selective cannulation in native papilla for each trainee. As time goes on
during ERCP training, trainees could become increasingly familiar with cannulation
of the native papilla. The rates of difficult or failed cannulation in trainee-involved
ERCP may thus be different in the early stages compared with the late stages of training,
as revealed by several previous studies [15 ]
[16 ]
[17 ]
[18 ]. The definition of difficult cannulation in trainee-involved procedures may be influenced
by the learning curve effect. Therefore, it would be valuable to further investigate,
in large prospective cohorts, whether the 15–10–2 criteria are still useful for defining
difficult cannulation at different stages of hands-on ERCP training.
The 15–10–2 criteria reflected the performance of both the trainee and the supervising
trainer, which compromised the validity of the findings. Trainee-involved cannulation
is a team effort. For the trainee involved in failed cannulation procedures, the corresponding
metrics of trainees and trainers could be evaluated separately. However, the respective
criteria might have limited clinical relevance as the outcomes of ERCP were influenced
by the combined performance of the trainee and the trainer. The criteria of difficult
cannulation have been widely used to determine whether PEP prophylaxis should be administrated
and when advanced cannulation methods should be considered. The proportion of cannulations
that were difficult, incidence of PEP, and overall adverse event rate seem comparable
between results determined by the 15–10–2 criteria in the trainee group and the 5–5–1
criteria in the non-trainee group. We believe the 15–10–2 criteria could be a useful
tool to determine difficult cases with trainee-involved cannulation, and deserve to
be further validated in different training centers.
During cannulation procedures, time is highly related to the number of cannulation
attempts, with a positive correlation confirmed in our study. Although many studies
use cannulation attempts as an indicator to judge difficult cannulation, there is
no uniform definition of a cannulation attempt. The recording of the cannulation attempts
is more tedious than cannulation time and requires an additional investigator to watch
the video in real time or retrospectively to obtain accurate values. A previous study
found that compared with the number of attempts to cannulate the papilla, cannulation
time was a more objective and more accurate assessment tool for grading cannulation
difficulty [19 ]. In the current study, following simplification of the criteria, there was no significant
difference between the original and simplified criteria that omitted the number of
cannulation attempts (5–5-1 vs. 5–1 and 15–10–2 vs. 15–2) in terms of the proportion
of difficult cannulation (only for 5–1 vs. 5–5–1), PEP incidence, and the use of advanced
cannulation techniques ([Fig. 2 ]), indicating that the simplification was a reasonable proposal.
The present study has some limitations. First, although data analysis was based on
a large sample size of patients undergoing ERCP, not all of the originally approached
patients were included, and a lack of relevant information makes it impossible to
determine whether there were any differences between those who were included and those
who were not. Furthermore, 8.4 % (146/1742) of patients in the trainee group were
not included after PSM. Therefore, selection bias should be considered when interpreting
the results. Second, the individual cannulation skills of the trainees were different,
which might affect the variables related to the cannulation procedure. However, skill
is difficult to evaluate objectively. Whether ERCP was elective or an emergency may
also influence the difficulty of cannulation. However, the current study only enrolled
patients undergoing elective ERCP. Although adverse events of PEP, cholangitis, and
bleeding occurred in this study, the 30-day mortality data were not available. Third,
the novel criteria for difficult cannulation in trainee-involved ERCP cannulation
procedures were not validated by internal and external cohorts owing to current limitations
in resources. The reliability of the criteria deserves to be further validated in
order to provide more credible evidence for wide acceptance of these novel criteria
in clinical practice.
In conclusion, the 15–10–2 criteria were proposed to define difficult cannulation
with trainee involvement and demonstrated performance that was similar to the 5–5–1
criteria used with non-trainee procedures. The simplified 5–1 criteria and 15–2 criteria
seemingly had comparable efficacy for the evaluation of difficult cannulation compared
with the traditional criteria.
