Saliva stress biomarkers in ERCP trainees before and after familiarisation with ERCP on a virtual simulator.

Background: Stress during the early ERCP learning curve may interfere with acquisition of skills during training. The purpose of this study was to compare stress biomarkers in the saliva of trainees before and after familiarisation with ERCP exercises on a virtual simulator.
Methods: Altogether 26 endoscopists under training, 14 women and 12 men, completed the three phases of this study: Phase 1. Three different ERCP procedures were performed on the simulator. Saliva for α-amylase (sAA), Chromogranin A (sCgA), and Cortisol (sC) were collected before (baseline), halfway through the exercise (ex.), and 10 min after completion of the exercise (comp.); Phase 2. A three-week familiarisation period where at least 30 different cases were performed on the virtual ERCP simulator; and Phase 3. Identical to Phase 1 where saliva samples were once again collected at baseline, during, and after the exercise. Percentage differences in biomarker levels between baseline and exercise (Diff _ex ) and between baseline and completion (Diff _comp ) during Phase 1 and Phase 3 were calculated for each stress marker.
Results: Mean % changes, Diff _ex and Diff _comp , were significantly positive ( p  < 0.05) for all markers in both Phase 1 and Phase 3. Diff _ex in Phase 1 was significantly greater than Diff _ex in Phase 3 ( p  < 0.05) for sAA and sCgA. Diff _comp for sAA in Phase 1 was significantly greater than Diff _comp in Phase 3 ( p  < 0.05). No significant differences were found in sC concentration between Phases 1 and 3.
Conclusion: This study shows that familiarisation with the ERCP simulator greatly reduced stress as measured by the three saliva stress biomarkers used with sAA being the best. It also suggests that familiarisation with an ERCP simulator might reduce stress in the clinical setting.
Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
(© 2024 Georgiou, Boyanov, Thanasas, Sandblom, Linardoutsos and Enochsson.)