All-cause mortality after ERCP

Background and study aims: This study aimed to externally validate a recently developed English model for the prediction of 30-day mortality after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Real-world mortality data beyond 30 days post-ERCP are scarce; thus, the study also aimed to develop a prediction model for mortality up to 12 months post-ERCP.

Patients and methods: All patients who underwent their first ERCP during a 3-year period (n = 16 478), as identified from the Swedish Hospital Discharge Registry, were linked to the Swedish Death Registry. Factors associated with all-cause mortality up to 12 months post-ERCP were identified by Cox proportional hazards analysis. A prediction model was developed.

Results: Post-ERCP mortality was 5 % at 30 days and increased to 11.9 % at 3 months. The English model slightly overpredicted 30-day mortality, which was corrected with recalibration. Discriminant validity of the recalibrated model was very good (c-statistic = 0.82). Independent predictors of medium-term mortality were: emergency admission (hazard ratio [HR] 1.48), cancer (HR 3.79), noncancer co-morbidity (1.33), gallstone-related diagnosis (HR 0.21), and age (HR 4.86 for ≥ 85 years vs. < 55 years). The c-statistic for 3 – 12-month mortality was 0.86 – 0.88. Specific ERCP complication codes were identified in 1.8 % of deaths within 30 days post-ERCP (0.09 % of ERCPs), and 75 % of deaths (18 % of ERCPs) within 1 year post-ERCP were due to cancer.

Conclusions: Mortality doubled from 30 days to 3 months post-ERCP, but it was attributed mainly to underlying disease, notably cancer, and infrequently to ERCP-related causes. A previously developed model predicting 30-day mortality was externally validated. A model accurately predicting mortality up to 12 months post-ERCP was developed.

• References

• 1 Williams EJ, 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; 56: 821-829
• 2 Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 625-630
• 3 Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U et al. Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1175-1184.e3
• 4 Glomsaker T, Hoff G, Kvaloy JT et al. Patterns and predictive factors of complications after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 373-380
• 5 Coelho-Prabhu N, Shah ND, Van Houten H et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10-year population-based cohort. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002689
• 6 Debray TP, Vergouwe Y, Koffijberg H et al. A new framework to enhance the interpretation of external validation studies of clinical prediction models. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 279-289
• 7 Cote GA, Imler TD, Xu H et al. Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Med Care 2013; 51: 1040-1047
• 8 Bodger K, Bowering K, Sarkar S et al. All-cause mortality after first ERCP in England: clinically guided analysis of hospital episode statistics with linkage to registry of death. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 825-833
• 9 Jacobsson A. The National Patient Register. Stockholm: The National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen); 2014 Available from: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/register/halsodataregister/patientregistret/inenglish
• 10 Nilsson AC, Spetz CL, Carsjo K et al. [Reliability of the hospital registry. The diagnostic data are better than their reputation]. Lakartidningen 1994; 91: 598, 603-595
• 11 Nyqvist K, Passmark H, Muzollo T. [Attachment to Comparisons regarding Quality and Effectiveness in Health Care 2009]. Stockholm: The National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen); 2009 Available from: http://webbutik.skl.se/sv/artiklar/halso-och-sjukvard/bilagor-till-oppna-jamforelser-av-halso-och-sjukvardens-kvalitet-och-effektivitet-2009-indikatorbesk.html
• 12 Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005; 43: 1130-1139
• 13 Mattsson B, Rutqvist LE, Wallgren A. Undernotification of diagnosed cancer cases to the Stockholm Cancer Registry. Int J Epidemiol 1985; 14: 64-69
• 14 Kalaitzakis E, Toth E. Hospital volume status is related to technical failure and all-cause mortality following ERCP for benign disease. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 1793-1800
• 15 Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010; 21: 128-138
• 16 Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJ, van Houwelingen HC et al. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med 2004; 23: 2567-2586
• 17 Cotton PB, Garrow DA, Gallagher J et al. Risk factors for complications after ERCP: a multivariate analysis of 11,497 procedures over 12 years. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 80-88
• 18 Hosmer DW, Leneshow S, May S. Applied survival analysis: regression modeling of time-to-event data. 2nd. . edn. New Jersey: Wiley-Interscience; 2008
• 19 Royston P, Altman DG. External validation of a Cox prognostic model: principles and methods. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 33
• 20 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
• 21 Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1753-1761
• 22 Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S et al. Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 721-731
• 23 Khashab MA, Tariq A, Tariq U et al. Delayed and unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are associated with worse outcomes in patients with acute cholangitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 1157-1161
• 24 James PD, Kaplan GG, Myers RP et al. Decreasing mortality from acute biliary diseases that require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a nationwide cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1151-1159
• 25 Campbell MJ, Jacques RM, Fotheringham J et al. Developing a summary hospital mortality index: retrospective analysis in English hospitals over five years. BMJ 2012; 344: e1001
• 26 Varadarajulu S, Kilgore ML, Wilcox CM et al. Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 338-347
• 27 Adler DG, Lieb 2nd JG, Cohen J et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 54-66
• 28 Toll DB, Janssen KJ, Vergouwe Y et al. Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 1085-1094