Francesco Panzera*, Marina Rizzi, Letizia D’Ambrosio, Maria Filippina Dilorenzo and Berardino D’Ascoli

Interventional Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgery, “Madonna delle Grazie” Hospital, Matera, Italy

*Corresponding Author: Francesco Panzera, Interventional Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgery, “Madonna delle Grazie” Hospital, Matera, Italy.

Received: April 29, 2021; Published: May 06, 2021

Citation: Francesco Panzera., et al. “Safety and Efficacy of ERCP Performed on Elderly and Very Elderly Patients in a Low Volume Provider Endoscopy Unit: Results from a Monocentric Retrospective Study with Control Group”. Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders 4.6 (2021): 03-11.

Abstract

  ERCP is one of the most challenging and high-risk endoscopic procedures. The incidence of biliary tract pathologies is growing with an age-related trend and progresses as the population ages.

  Both the age-related outcomes and the volume-related outcomes for ERCP are still debated and incompletely understood. Experts generally agree that the lower the volumes of ERCP provided, the higher procedure-related complication and failure rates are expected. Some studies showed that ERCP in elderly patients is comparable in terms of efficacy and safety to ERCP in younger patients. However, these data generally concern studies made in referral centers and high-volume providers of ERCP. This study analyzes the performance of ERCP when it is performed on elderly and very elderly patients in a low-volume center of biliary endoscopy.

Keywords: ERCP; Safety and Efficacy; Very Elderly Patients; Low-Volume Center; Biliary Endoscopy Complications

Bibliography

1. Kowal P and Dowd JE. “Definition of an older person. Proposed working definition of an older person in Africa for the MDS Project”. Geneva: 2001. WHO (2002).
2. Cotton PB., et al. “Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy3 (1991): 383-393.
3. Bilbao MK., et al. “Complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). A study of 10,000 cases”. Gastroenterology 70,3 (1976): 314-320.
4. Ramirez FC., et al. “Emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in critically ill patients”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy5 (1998): 368-371.
5. N. United Nation. Home Global Issues from Ageing (2020).
6. Overall C. “How Old Is Old? Changing Conceptions of Old Age”. In: Scarre G. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Aging. Palgrave Macmillan, London (2016).
7. WHO - Global Health Observatory (GHO). From Life expectancy at birth (2020).
8. Franceschi C., et al. “Inflamm-aging. An evolutionary perspective on immunosenescence”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 908 (2000): 244-254.
9. Kountouras Jannis., et al. “Locoregional immunochemotherapy in primary and metastatic liver disease: meta-analysis and review of literature”. Hepato-gastroenterology53 (2003): 1506-1510.
10. Rodríguez-González Francisco Javier., et al. “ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 58,2 (2003): 220-225.
11. Hui C-K., et al. “Outcome of emergency ERCP for acute cholangitis in patients 90 years of age and older”. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics11 (2004): 1153-1158.
12. Mitchell Robert Michael Stephen., et al. “Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe and effective in patients 90 years of age and older”. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology1 (2003): 72-74.
13. Katsinelos Panagiotis., et al. “Efficacy and safety of therapeutic ERCP in patients 90 years of age and older”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy3 (2006): 417-423.
14. Maitin-Casalis N., et al. “Protective effect of advanced age on post-ERCP pancreatitis and unplanned hospitalisation”. Internal Medicine Journal10 (2015): 1020-1025.
15. Bodger Keith., et al. “All-cause mortality after first ERCP in England: clinically guided analysis of hospital episode statistics with linkage to registry of death”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy4 (2011): 825-833.
16. Varadarajulu Shyam., et al. “Relationship among hospital ERCP volume, length of stay, and technical outcomes”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy3 (2006): 338-347.
17. Coté Gregory A., et al. “Lower provider volume is associated with higher failure rates for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography”. Medical Care12 (2013): 1040-1047.
18. Keswani Rajesh N., et al. “Association Between Endoscopist and Center Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Volume with Procedure Success and Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology12 (2017): 1866-1875.e3.
19. Harvey Philip R., et al. “Higher volume providers are associated with improved outcomes following ERCP for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction”. EClinicalMedicine 18 (2020): 100212.
20. Huang Robert J., et al. “Unplanned Hospital Encounters After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in 3 Large North American States”. Gastroenterology 1 (2019): 119-129.e3.
21. Ukkonen Mika., et al. “Safety and Efficacy of Acute Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Elderly”. Digestive Diseases and Sciences11 (2016): 3302-3308.
22. Mazzola Paolo., et al. “Aging in Italy: The Need for New Welfare Strategies in an Old Country”. The Gerontologist3 (2016): 383-390.
23. Ali Massud., et al. “A retrospective study of the safety and efficacy of ERCP in octogenarians”. Digestive Diseases and Sciences2 (2011): 586-590.
24. Lu Yi., et al. “Is ERCP both effective and safe for common bile duct stones removal in octogenarians? A comparative study”. Aging Clinical and Experimental Research4 (2016): 647-652.
25. Holt Bronte A. “Increased severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications in the elderly: an issue to be addressed”. Digestive Endoscopy: Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society4 (2014): 534-535.
26. Mitchell Robert Michael Stephen., et al. “Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe and effective in patients 90 years of age and older”. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology1 (2003): 72-74.
27. Bergman JJ., et al. “Biliary endoprostheses in elderly patients with endoscopically irretrievable common bile duct stones: report on 117 patients”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy3 (1995): 195-201.
28. Galeazzi Marianna., et al. “Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the elderly: results of a retrospective study and a geriatricians' point of view”. BMC Gastroenterology1 (2018): 38.
29. Day Lukejohn W., et al. “Adverse events in older patients undergoing ERCP: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. Endoscopy International Open1 (2014): E28-E36.
30. Freeman ML., et al. “Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy”. The New England Journal of Medicine 13 (1996): 909-918.
31. Cheng Chi-Liang., et al. “Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study”. The American Journal of Gastroenterology1 (2006): 139-147.
32. Loperfido S., et al. “Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study”. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy1 (1998): 1-10.
33. Dickinson R J and S Davies. “Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia: the role of operative and patient factors”. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology5 (1998): 423-428.

Copyright: © 2021 Francesco Panzera., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.