Prospective multicenter quality assessment of endotherapy of biliary stones: does center volume matter?

Background and study aims: To study the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment for biliary stones in a large case list of patients treated in units with different experience and different workloads in a region of northern Italy.

Patients and methods: We prospectively studied 700 patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or sphincterotomy, in 14 units (> or < 200 examinations/year), for their first treatment of biliary stones. The difficulty of the examinations, the results in terms of clearance of the stones, and the late outcomes (24 months) were recorded. A questionnaire (GHAA-9modified) was administered 24 hours and 30 days after the procedure to measure patient satisfaction.

Results: There were six units with a heavy workload and eight with a light schedule. There were 176 (25.1 %) difficult examinations (Schutz grades 3, 4, and 5). Stones were found in 580 (82.9 %) and were cleared in 504 of these patients (86.9 %). No differences were observed in the clearance of stones for the different groups of difficulty and high- and low-volume centers. Over the 24-month follow-up period, 96 patients (13.7 %) complained of recurrent symptoms and 44 (6.3 %) had proof of stones. In all, 603 questionnaires were evaluable and more than 80 % of patients expressed satisfaction.

Conclusions: Our findings confirm the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment of biliary stones. However, the number of patients with symptoms (13.7) after 24 months, with or without persistence of stones, was not insignificant. It is feasible to record patient satisfaction, and in this series patients stated they were satisfied. Criticism mostly concerned pain control and explanations provided before the examination.

References

• 1 Jowell P S, Biellie J, Branch S. et al . Quantitative assessment of procedural competence: a prospective study of training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Ann Intern Med. 1996;  125 983-989
• 2 Roston A D, Jacobson I M. Evaluation of the pattern of liver tests and yield of cholangiography in symptomatic choledocolithiasis: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 394-399
• 3 Freeman M L, Nelson D B, Sherman S. et al . Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy.  N Engl J Med. 1996;  335 909-918
• 4 Johanson J F, Cooper G, Eisen G M. et al. for the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Outcomes Research Committee . Quality assessment of ERCP. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 165-169
• 5 Keats A S. The ASA classifications of physical status: recapitulation.  Anesthesiology. 1978;  49 239-243
• 6 Cotton P B. Income and outcome metrics for the objective evaluation of ERCP and alternative methods.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  56 (Suppl 6) S283-S290
• 7 Katz D, Nikfarjam M, Sfakioyaki A, Christophi C. Selective endoscopic cholangiography for the detection of common bile duct stones in patients with cholelithiasis.  Endoscopy. 2004;  36 1045-1049
• 8 Prat F, Meduri B, Ducot B. et al . Prediction of common bile duct stones by non invasive tests.  Ann of Surg. 1999;  229 362-368
• 9 Schutz S M, Abbott R M. Grading ERCPs by degree of difficulty: a new concept to produce more meaningful outcome data.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 535-539
• 10 Brotman M, Allen J I, Bickston S J. et al . AGA Task force on Quality in Practice. A national overview and implications for GI practice.  Gastroenterology. 2005;  129 361-369
• 11 Costamagna G, Tringali A, Shah S H. et al . Long-term follow-up of patients after endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocolithiasis, and risk factors for recurrences.  Endoscopy. 2002;  34 273-279
• 12 Lai K-H, Lo G H, Lin C K. et al . Do patients with recurrent choledocolithiasis after endoscopic sphincterotomy benefit from regular follow-up?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;  55 523-526
• 13 Lisen G M, Degarmo P, Brodner R, Lieberman D A. Can the ASA grade predict the risk of endoscopic complications?.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 AB 142
• 14 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
• 15 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosemberg J. Complications of ERCP; a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 721-731
• 16 Johanson J F. Quality and outcomes management in gastroenterology.  Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 1997;  26 859-871
• 17 Baron T H, Peterson B T, Mergener K, Amitabh C. Quality indicators for endoscopic cholangiopancreaotography.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 892-897
• 18 Tham T CK, Carr-Locke D L, Collins J SA. Endoscopic sphincterotomy in the young patient: is there cause for concern?.  Gut. 1997;  40 687-700
• 19 Yaradarajula S, Kilgure M I, Wilcox C M, Eloubeldi M A. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay and technical outcomes.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  64 338-350
• 20 Williams E J, Taylor S, Fairclough P. 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;  58 821-829
• 21 Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A. et al . Setting up a Quality Assurance Program in Endoscopy.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 701-708
• 22 Harewood G C, Wiersema M J, de Groen P T. Utility of webbased assessment of patient satisfaction with endoscopy.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;  98 1061-1021