EVALUATING ERCP OUTCOMES: GENERAL ANESTHESIA VS. CONSCIOUS SEDATION IN A TERTIARY CARE SETTING

Authors

  • A WAHEED Department of Anesthesia, Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College Lahore, Pakistan
  • TW BUTT Farooq Teaching Hospital, Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College Lahore, Pakistan
  • MA GUL Department of Gastroenterology, Services Institute of Medical Sciences Lahore, Pakistan
  • M FAISAL Farooq Teaching Hospital, Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.950

Keywords:

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, General Anesthesia, Conscious Sedation, Biliary Tract Disorders, Pancreatic Disorders, Procedural Success

Abstract

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a critical technique for diagnosing and treating conditions affecting the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Recently, there has been a shift towards employing general anesthesia instead of conscious sedation for these interventions to enhance comfort and efficiency, particularly in intricate cases. This investigation evaluates the decision-making process behind general anesthesia over conscious sedation and assesses their comparative effectiveness and associated complication rates. Methods: Conducted as a retrospective cohort study at Akhtar Saeed Medical and Dental College Lahore, Pakistan, in the period from November 2023 to April 2024, this research involved 380 ERCP patients equally divided into two groups: one administered general anesthesia and the other, conscious sedation. Comprehensive data collection included patient demographics, specific criteria before the procedure, procedural details, and outcomes. The analysis utilized SPSS version 26.0, applying independent t-tests and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, alongside logistic regression to pinpoint procedural outcomes and complications predictors. Results: Both the general anesthesia and conscious sedation groups, averaging ages of 55.2 and 54.8 years, respectively, showed no significant disparity in BMI, ASA scores, or reasons for ERCP. Success rates of the procedures did not significantly differ, standing at 85% for general anesthesia and 83% for conscious sedation, with complication rates at 20% and 18%, respectively. Metrics such as post-procedure pain, hospitalization duration, and patient satisfaction remained statistically similar across both groups. Conclusions: The study concludes that general anesthesia for ERCP is just as effective and safe as conscious sedation, with both methods showing equivalent success and complication rates. These results advocate for a tailored, patient-centric approach in selecting anesthesia techniques for ERCP, ensuring no procedural effectiveness or patient safety compromise.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Lee TH, Park SH, Kim HJ, et al. Patient factors predicting difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(4):745-754.

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):1-10.

Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(13):909-918.

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(1):80-88.

Wang P, Li ZS, Liu F, et al. Risk factors for ERCP-related complications: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(1):31-40.

Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, Anderson MA, et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(4):731-744.

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(1):80-88.

Miller SM, Varelmann D, White N, et al. Influence of anesthesia on the success rate of ERCP: A randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(3):690-699. PubMed

Riphaus A, Wehrmann T, Weber B, et al. Sedation with propofol for routine ERCP in high-risk octogenarians: a randomized, controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):2003-2007.

Arai T, Takeda K, Yoshikawa T, et al. Prospective evaluation of patient satisfaction and quality of life following sedation with propofol for ERCP. Endoscopy. 2014;46(7):623-629.

Clarke AC, Chiragakis L, Hill D, et al. Sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures: a comparative study of propofol versus midazolam. Endoscopy. 2005;37(2):159-165.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-24

How to Cite

WAHEED, A., BUTT, T., GUL, M., & FAISAL, M. (2024). EVALUATING ERCP OUTCOMES: GENERAL ANESTHESIA VS. CONSCIOUS SEDATION IN A TERTIARY CARE SETTING. Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, 2024(1), 950. https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2024i1.950