Brief Articles
Copyright ©2011 Baishideng Publishing Group Co., Limited. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 16, 2011; 3(3): 57-61
Published online Mar 16, 2011. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v3.i3.57
Endoscopic and anesthetic feasibility of EUS and ERCP combined in a single session versus two different sessions
Juan J Vila, Marcos Kutz, Silvia Goñi, Miriam Ostiz, Edurne Amorena, Carlos Prieto, Cristina Rodriguez, Ignacio Fernández-Urien, Francisco J Jiménez
Juan J Vila, Marcos Kutz, Silvia Goñi, Miriam Ostiz, Edurne Amorena, Carlos Prieto, Cristina Rodriguez, Ignacio Fernández-Urien, Francisco J Jiménez, Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona 31008, Spain
Author contributions: Vila JJ was responsible for the study design, manuscript draft and coordination; Kutz M was responsible for writing corrections and data collection; Ostiz M and Amorena E were responsible for data collection; Prieto C and Rodríguez C performed statistical analysis and interpretation; Fernández-Urien I provided a critical review; and Jiménez FJ gave the final approval.
Correspondence to: Juan J Vila, MD, Endoscopy Unit, Gastroenterology Department, Centro Hospitalario de Navarra, Pamplona 31008, Spain. juanjvila@gmail.com
Telephone: +34-848-422114 Fax: +34-848-422303
Received: November 8, 2010
Revised: February 16, 2011
Accepted: February 23, 2011
Published online: March 16, 2011
Abstract

AIM: To discuss the feasibility of single session endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to discuss and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) execution.

METHODS: Retrospective endoscopic and anesthetic outcome comparison of performing both EUS and ERCP in a single endoscopic session (Group I) versus performing each procedure in two different sessions (Group II) was made. The following variables were evaluated: epidemiological variables, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA) level, procedural time, propofol dose, anesthetic complications, endoscopic complications and diagnostic yield, and therapeutic procedures on both groups. T-student, Chi-Square and Fisher test were used for comparison.

RESULTS: We included 39 patients in Group I (mean age: 69.85 ± 9.25; 27 men) and 46 in Group II (mean age: 67.46 ± 12.57; 25 men). Procedural time did not differ significantly between both groups (Group Ivs Group II: 93 ± 32.78 vs 98.98 ± 38.17; P >0.05) but the dose of propofol differed (Group I vs Group II: 322.28 ± 250.54 mg vs 516.96 ± 289.06 mg; P = 0.001). Three patients had normal findings on both explorations. Three anesthetic complications [O2 desaturation (2), broncoaspiration (1)] and 9 endoscopic complications [pancreatitis (6), bleeding (1), perforation (1), cholangitis (1)] occurred without significant differences between both groups (P > 0.05). We did not find any significant difference regarding age, sex, ASA scale level, diagnostic yield or therapeutic maneuvers between both groups.

CONCLUSION: The performance of EUS and ERCP in a single session offers a similar diagnostic and therapeutic yield, does not entail a higher complication risk and requires a significantly smaller dose of propofol for sedation compared with performing each exploration in a different session.

Keywords: Endosonography; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Feasibility studies; Endoscopy; Gastrointestinal; Anesthesia