Search

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts.Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Endoscopic complications are rare but inevitable, occurring in fewer than 0.35% of procedures [B]. Knowledge of potential complications and their expected frequency can lead to an improved informed consent process [C]. Complications from the procedure include perforation, hemorrhage, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, infection, preparation-associated complications, and death, and are more likely to occur with therapeutic procedures rather than diagnostic procedures [B]. Risk factors for poylpectomy-associated complications include the location and size of the polyp, experience of the operator, polypectomy technique and possibly the type of electrocoagulation current used [B]. Use of saline solution injection under large sessile polyps decreases depth of thermal injury [A] and may decrease complications [B]. Early recognition of complications and prompt intervention may decrease patient morbidity [C]. Treatment of complications range from supportive for postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, to repeat colonoscopy with injection or electrocoagulation for bleeding, to surgical repair for free perforation [B]. Consideration of the risks and benefits may improve clinical outcome by identifying potential complications and taking appropriate steps to minimize the risks [C].

Background:Acute esophageal food impaction (AEFI) is the most common form of esophageal impaction in adults. The current recommendation for management is extraction by using an overtube to protect the airway, which facilitates multiple passages of the endoscope and protects the esophageal mucosa. Typically, AEFI in our patients is treated with the push technique, a method found to be highly successful and without complications. Methods:All patients with a diagnosis of AEFI from 1993 to 1998 were identified by computer search of ICD-9 diagnosis code 935.1 (foreign body of the esophagus). Patients were excluded if they were less than 18 years of age, had an acute esophageal foreign body other than food, or if the medical record was incomplete. Results:The analysis included 189 patients: 114 men and 75 women. Of these, 77 (41%) had a Schatzki's ring, 61 (32%) had an esophageal stricture, and 4 (2%) had esophageal cancer. In 47 patients (25%) no obvious structural cause for AEFI was noted at endoscopy. In addition, 67 patients had breaks in the esophageal mucosa. The push technique resolved the food impaction in 184 of 189 (97%) of the patients. In no subgroup was there an instance of perforation, aspiration, or bleeding. Forty-five patients underwent dilation at the time of food disimpaction without complication. Conclusions:The push technique is both safe and effective in the treatment of AEFI. Dilation at the initial presentation of a patient with AEFI likewise appears to be safe. The push technique is recommended as the initial therapy of choice for AEFI. Dilation at the time of esophageal food disimpaction can be considered if there are no obvious contraindications. (Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:178-81.)

Background: Possible sources of post-ERCP pancreatitis were evaluated during a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing different contrast media. Methods: A total of 1979 patients were randomized and subdivided into groups during the study. Patients were grouped for comparison depending on the type of procedure performed during ERCP. Diagnostic patients studied with pancreatograms (Group I) were compared with other groups, specifically, those not studied with pancreatograms (Group IV). All patients had subjective and objective estimates of the difficulty in cannulation of both ducts. The incidence of postprocedural pancreatitis was compared between and within each group. Results: In Group I there was a progressively higher incidence of pancreatitis with increased numbers of pancreatic duct injections. Patients with the highest (19.5%) frequency of pancreatitis received 10 or more injections into the pancreatic duct. Group I cases with difficult common bile duct cannulations had a higher frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis (9.5%), as compared with the entire group (5.6%). Conclusions: There was a higher incidence of pancreatitis associated with increased manipulation around the papillary orifice, especially with multiple pancreatic duct injections. There was also a slightly higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in cases with difficult common bile duct cannulation. Endoscopists are encouraged to evaluate and develop safer cannulation techniques that minimize the number of injections into the pancreatic duct and enhance selective cannulation. (Gastrointest Endosc 1997;46:217-22.)

Background:Pancreatitis is one of the most common complications associated with ERCP. Multiple factors have been implicated for this potentially serious complication. Numerous suggestions for minimizing risks at ERCP have been offered, one of which is to use nonionic, low osmolarity contrast agents for pancreatic injection. Results of previous studies comparing different contrast media have been inconclusive.

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to collect data regarding the utilization of ERCP among a broad spectrum of practice types and sites in order to determine the most prevalent indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in the United States. Methods: A physician network of 32 practice sites comprising 23 states and 116 endoscopists entered endoscopic reports into the CORI (Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative) database from 6/30/97-9/30/99. Data was merged at a central databank. Results:2601 reports on 2291 unique patients had ERCP reports transmitted to the databank. 58% of patients were male and the mean age of patients was 55.7. 1700/2601 (65.4%) of ERCPs involved therapy. CORI indications for ERCP include symptoms, evaluation of known or suspected ampullary, biliary, pancreatic or liver diseases, peri-operative evaluation,and planned therapeutic intervention. Endoscopists may enter more than one indication. The most common indications for ERCP were: Conclusions: ERCP data can be collected among different practice types. These data can demonstrate current endoscopic practice patterns, whcih have not been previously evaluated. it appears that ERCP in the U.S. is primarily utilized to diagnose and treat biliary disorders. Other than for evaluation or therapy of pancreatitis, ERCP is not utilized frequently for pancreatic disease in this consortium.