EUS and ERCP complication rates are not increased in elderly patients

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic solid mass in the elderly: A single-center retrospective study

AIM

There are few reports on the safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the elderly. In this study, we investigated the safety of EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses in patients aged ≥80 years.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective study. A total of 600 patients with pancreatic solid masses who underwent EUS-FNA under midazolam-based sedation at our institution between September 2016 and December 2022 were enrolled in this study. Eligible patients were divided into two groups: an elderly group aged ≥80 (n = 84), as well as a nonelderly group aged ≤79 (n = 516). These two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The elderly group required significantly fewer midazolam doses for sedation (P < 0.001). Adverse events occurred in eight patients (1.3%), including one (1.2%) and seven (1.4%) in the elderly and nonelderly groups, respectively (P = 0.90). There were no cases of early adverse events in the elderly group and six cases (1.2%) in the nonelderly group (P = 0.32). There was one case of late adverse events in both the elderly and nonelderly groups (P = 0.14), and both were needle tract seeding. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the proportion of cases in which percutaneous oxygen saturation decreased to ≤90% during the EUS-FNA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis suggests that EUS-FNA for pancreatic solid masses can be safely performed in patients aged >80 years without increasing the adverse event rate compared to nonelderly patients aged <80 years. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2023; 23: 836-841.

Intraperitoneal bleeding from the right gastroepiploic artery by endoscopic ultrasonography: a case report

Objective: To describe the case of a patient with intraperitoneal bleeding from the gastroepiploic artery by endoscopic ultrasound who was successfully treated with transcatheter arterial coil embolization.

Patient and Methods: An 87-year-old man was referred to our hospital for examination of a gallbladder tumor. Endoscopic ultrasonography was performed using an oblique-view echoendoscope. After the endoscopic ultrasound, the patient went into shock. Computed tomography revealed a huge intraperitoneal hematoma and an aneurysm in the right gastroepiploic artery that were not seen on previous computed tomography images. Thus, urgent catheter angiography was performed, which showed a pseudoaneurysm of the right gastroepiploic artery and extravasation of the contrast medium from the pseudoaneurysm.

Results: Transcatheter arterial coil embolization was subsequently performed, and the bleeding stopped. Thereafter, his hemodynamics stabilized and his general condition improved. The patient was discharged 22 days post-treatment with an uneventful course.

Conclusion: Observation-only endoscopic ultrasound without invasive procedures can cause intraperitoneal bleeding due to a ruptured splanchnic artery. Thus, endoscopic ultrasonography should be performed more carefully in elderly patients.

Target-controlled propofol infusion with or without bispectral index monitoring of sedation during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) uses averaged pharmacokinetic datasets derived from population samples to automatically control the infusion rate. Bispectral index (BIS) technology non-invasively measures levels of consciousness during surgical procedures. We compared the efficacy and safety of propofol TCI with or without BIS monitoring for sedation during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

This prospective study enrolled 200 patients who were premedicated with midazolam 2 mg and alfentanil 0.4 mg before undergoing advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy. The initial target blood concentration of propofol was set at 1.0 μg/mL, and adjustments of 0.2 μg/mL were made as necessary to maintain moderate-to-deep sedation. Patients were randomized to either the BIS-blind group and evaluated for depth of anesthesia by monitoring scores of 1-2 on the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation scale (n = 100) or to the BIS-open group and monitored by BIS scores of 60-80 (n = 100). The primary outcome was the total amount of propofol required to maintain anesthesia. Secondary outcomes were sedation-induced adverse events, recovery, and quality of sedation (endoscopist and patient satisfaction).

RESULTS

The mean propofol infusion rate was significantly higher in patients not monitored by BIS scores than in those who were (5.44 ± 2.12 vs 4.76 ± 1.84 mg/kg/h; P = 0.016). Levels of satisfaction were higher for endoscopists who used BIS monitoring than in those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Mean infusion rates were higher in propofol TCI without BIS monitoring compared with propofol TCI with BIS during advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopists expressed satisfaction with BIS monitoring.

Endoscopic management of iatrogenic EUS-related duodenal perforations with over-the-scope clips

Background and study aims  Iatrogenic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) perforations are life-threatening adverse event and to date, surgery has been the main treatment for them. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility and safety of conservative treatment with over-the-scope clips (OTSC). Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective study, including iatrogenic EUS duodenal perforation with conservative endoscopic management from 2011 to August 2018. Patients who initial had surgical management were excluded. Results  In 8504 EUS procedure occurred, 13 perforations occurred (0.15 %). Eleven patients were included in the study, all women. Mean patient age was 75 years (range 68 - 88). Eighth of 11 perforations (72.7 %) were due to a radial probe and three of 11 (27.3 %) were due to a curvilinear probe. Eleven procedures (100 %) were performed as diagnostic. Defect size ranged from 10 to 15 mm. All procedures were successful. Three of eleven patients (27 %) had a stay in intensive care unit for less than 72 hours and length of total hospital stay ranged from 3 to 22 days. Conclusion  Conservative endoscopic treatment of Iatrogenic EUS perforation, with OTSC is feasible, efficient and safe.

[Gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients of advanced age]

The dramatic increase in life expectancy is leading to a significant increase in the use of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the elderly. Taking into account these demographic changes, the use of gastrointestinal endoscopy in this age group is of great importance. Although these procedures are generally safe and well tolerated even in very elderly patients, the onset of physiological changes associated with aging and the increased prevalence of cardiovascular and pulmonary comorbidities raise the risk of sedation related complications in these patients. Age alone is not a contraindication for performing any endoscopic procedure. However, elderly patients have their own peculiarities that require a detailed review of the characteristics, risks and benefits of endoscopic procedures in this specific context.

Complications and outcomes of routine endoscopy in the very elderly

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 In Japan, the elderly population has been increasing annually. The number of elderly patients for whom esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy (CS) is indicated also has been rising. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of routine endoscopy in a cohort of octogenarians aged 85 years and older - defined by the World Health Organization as the very elderly.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A total of 5,586 patients underwent EGDs, and 2,484 patients underwent CSs performed at the Keio University Hospital from January to September 2014. One hundred eighty-five EGDs and 70 of the CS were performed in the very elderly. Six hundred nine EGDs and 262 CS were performed on younger patients (aged forties). Statistical analysis was performed by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

 On univariate analysis, the rate of adverse events (AEs) in the very elderly was significantly higher compared to the younger group (6.3 % vs. 1.1 %; P  < 0.01). Moreover, the very elderly cohort received substantial therapeutic intervention as compared to the younger (16.9 % vs. 6.9 %; P  < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors of AEs included: very elderly patients (odds ratio (OR) 3.30, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.05 - 10.35), inpatients (OR 3.22, 95 % CI 1.34 - 7.74), and use of pethidine hydrochloride prescription (OR 3.44, 95 % CI 1.51 - 7.81).

CONCLUSIONS

 Routine endoscopy in the very elderly incurs a significant risk of AEs, particularly when combined with pethidine hydrochloride prescription.

Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of incidental pancreatic lesions are being detected each year. Accurate characterisation of pancreatic lesions into benign, precancerous, and cancer masses is crucial in deciding whether to use treatment or surveillance. Distinguishing benign lesions from precancerous and cancerous lesions can prevent patients from undergoing unnecessary major surgery. Despite the importance of accurately classifying pancreatic lesions, there is no clear algorithm for management of focal pancreatic lesions.

OBJECTIVES

To determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of various imaging modalities in detecting cancerous and precancerous lesions in people with focal pancreatic lesions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index until 19 July 2016. We searched the references of included studies to identify further studies. We did not restrict studies based on language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include studies reporting cross-sectional information on the index test (CT (computed tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), PET (positron emission tomography), EUS (endoscopic ultrasound), EUS elastography, and EUS-guided biopsy or FNA (fine-needle aspiration)) and reference standard (confirmation of the nature of the lesion was obtained by histopathological examination of the entire lesion by surgical excision, or histopathological examination for confirmation of precancer or cancer by biopsy and clinical follow-up of at least six months in people with negative index tests) in people with pancreatic lesions irrespective of language or publication status or whether the data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched the references to identify relevant studies and extracted the data. We planned to use the bivariate analysis to calculate the summary sensitivity and specificity with their 95% confidence intervals and the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) to compare the tests and assess heterogeneity, but used simpler models (such as univariate random-effects model and univariate fixed-effect model) for combining studies when appropriate because of the sparse data. We were unable to compare the diagnostic performance of the tests using formal statistical methods because of sparse data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 54 studies involving a total of 3,196 participants evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various index tests. In these 54 studies, eight different target conditions were identified with different final diagnoses constituting benign, precancerous, and cancerous lesions. None of the studies was of high methodological quality. None of the comparisons in which single studies were included was of sufficiently high methodological quality to warrant highlighting of the results. For differentiation of cancerous lesions from benign or precancerous lesions, we identified only one study per index test. The second analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous versus benign lesions, provided three tests in which meta-analysis could be performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer were: EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 1.00), specificity 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.95 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.99), specificity 0.53 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.74); PET: sensitivity 0.92 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.97), specificity 0.65 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84). The third analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous lesions from benign lesions, only provided one test (EUS-FNA) in which meta-analysis was performed. EUS-FNA had moderate sensitivity for diagnosing precancerous or cancerous lesions (sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.01 to 1.00) and high specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.00), the extremely wide confidence intervals reflecting the heterogeneity between the studies). The fourth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (dysplasia) provided three tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing invasive carcinoma were: CT: sensitivity 0.72 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.87), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97); EUS: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.94), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.66 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.99), specificity 0.92 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.98). The fifth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) versus precancerous (low- or intermediate-grade dysplasia) provided six tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosing cancer (high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) were: CT: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00), specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.00 to 1.00); EUS: sensitivity 0.86 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); EUS-FNA: sensitivity 0.47 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.70), specificity 0.91 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00); EUS-FNA carcinoembryonic antigen 200 ng/mL: sensitivity 0.58 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.83), specificity 0.51 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.81); MRI: sensitivity 0.69 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.86), specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.00); PET: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.96), specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99). The sixth analysis, of studies differentiating cancerous (invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided no tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The seventh analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) provided two tests in which meta-analysis was performed. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cancer were: CT: sensitivity 0.83 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92), specificity 0.83 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.93) and MRI: sensitivity 0.80 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.92), specificity 0.81 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.95), respectively. The eighth analysis, of studies differentiating precancerous or cancerous (intermediate- or high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma) from precancerous (low-grade dysplasia) or benign lesions provided no test in which meta-analysis was performed.There were no major alterations in the subgroup analysis of cystic pancreatic focal lesions (42 studies; 2086 participants). None of the included studies evaluated EUS elastography or sequential testing.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to arrive at any firm conclusions because of the differences in the way that study authors classified focal pancreatic lesions into cancerous, precancerous, and benign lesions; the inclusion of few studies with wide confidence intervals for each comparison; poor methodological quality in the studies; and heterogeneity in the estimates within comparisons.

Assessment of safety of non-anesthesiologist-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography based on performance status in elderly patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been increasingly performed in the elderly patients, yet little is known concerning objective criteria of safety. This study aimed to determine the potential predictors for the procedure-related outcomes.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-one patients older than 70 years who were indicated for ERCP (group A [n = 195], 70-79 years of age; group B [n = 86], ≥ 80 years of age) were prospectively enrolled and analyzed for the development of serious adverse events related to ERCP.

RESULTS

ERCP was not performed in six patients at high risk for the procedure. There were significant differences between group A and B in Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) (23.1 vs 14.9, P < 0.01) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (3 and 4, 49/195 vs 33/86, P < 0.05). Major ERCP-related complications (hypotension, severe bradycardia, hypoxia, myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction) occurred in five patients from group B and three from group A. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in one patient from group A and bleeding in one from group B. In univariate analysis, old age (≥ 80 years), American Society of Anesthesiologists score ≥ 3, and DASI < 10 were statistically significant predictors for overall serious events related to ERCP. In the multivariate analysis, DASI < 10 (only manage to ambulate) was independent predictor for overall serious events related to ERCP.

CONCLUSION

DASI score is useful predictor for the feasibility assessment of safe ERCP in the elderly patients.

Endoscopy in the elderly: risks, benefits, and yield of common endoscopic procedures

There has been limited research examining the risks, benefits, and use of common endoscopic procedures in the elderly. Furthermore, gastroenterology training programs do not routinely incorporate elderly concerns when dealing with common gastrointestinal issues. There exists a broad array of endoscopic procedures with varying inherent risks that must be weighed with each elderly patient in mind. This article discusses the benefits and drawbacks of the most common procedures and indications for endoscopy including upper endoscopy, colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and deep enteroscopy.

Italian consensus guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms

This report contains clinically oriented guidelines for the diagnostic work-up and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms in patients fit for treatment. The statements were elaborated by working groups of experts by searching and analysing the literature, and then underwent a consensus process using a modified Delphi procedure. The statements report recommendations regarding the most appropriate use and timing of various imaging techniques and of endoscopic ultrasound, the role of circulating and intracystic markers and the pathologic evaluation for the diagnosis and follow-up of cystic pancreatic neoplasms.

Safety of endoscopic ultrasonography in elderly patients: a single center prospective trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The aim of this prospective study is to evaluate the safety of both diagnostic and therapeutic endosonography (EUS) in geriatric population.

METHODS

The study population, consisting of 222 patients who underwent endosonographic evaluation for different indications, was divided into two groups. Group I consisted of 165 patients, ≥ 65 years old; Group II consisted of 57 controls, <65 years old. The demographic information with clinical parameters, procedure medication used and complications was noted.

RESULTS

The median age of Group I was 72 years (range 65-93 years) vs. 46 years (range 26-64 years) for Group II. Female-to-male ratio was 82/83 in Group I, while 32/25 in Group II. Pulse rate (84 vs. 89 beats/min, p = 0.024) and basal oxygen saturation (94 vs. 97 %, p < 0.001) levels were lower in Group I when compared with the control group, while systolic blood pressure measurements (150 vs. 130 mmHg, p < 0.001) were significantly higher in Group I. No cases of procedure-related bleeding, perforation and mortality were observed in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the well-known relative increased procedural risks, advanced age is not a contraindication for advanced endoscopic interventions. EUS can be regarded as a safe and effective procedure in ≥ 65 years old population.

Endoscopy in the elderly

With increasing age, the incidence of both benign and malignant gastrointestinal (GI) disease rises. Endoscopic procedures are commonly performed in elderly and very elderly patients to diagnose and treat GI disorders. There are a number of issues to contemplate when considering performing an endoscopic procedure in an elderly patient, including the anticipated benefits of endoscopy as well as the increased risks associated with procedural sedation and some endoscopic procedures. This review will focus on the yield and safety of endoscopic procedures in older adults.

Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasonography: Assessment of safety and prevention of complications

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has gained wide acceptance as an important, minimally invasive diagnostic tool in gastroenterology, pulmonology, visceral surgery and oncology. This review focuses on data regarding risks and complications of non-interventional diagnostic EUS and EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Measures to improve the safety of EUS und EUS-FNB will be discussed. Due to the specific mechanical properties of echoendoscopes in EUS, there is a low but noteworthy risk of perforation. To minimize this risk, endoscopists should be familiar with the specific features of their equipment and their patients’ specific anatomical situations (e.g., tumor stenosis, diverticula). Most diagnostic EUS complications occur during EUS-FNB. Pain, acute pancreatitis, infection and bleeding are the primary adverse effects, occurring in 1% to 2% of patients. Only a few cases of needle tract seeding and peritoneal dissemination have been reported. The mortality associated with EUS and EUS-FNB is 0.02%. The risks associated with EUS-FNB are affected by endoscopist experience and target lesion. EUS-FNB of cystic lesions is associated with an increased risk of infection and hemorrhage. Peri-interventional antibiotics are recommended to prevent cyst infection. Adequate education and training, as well consideration of contraindications, are essential to minimize the risks of EUS and EUS-FNB. Restricting EUS-FNB only to patients in whom the cytopathological results may be expected to change the course of management is the best way of reducing the number of complications.

Combined ERCP and EUS in one session is safe in elderly patients when compared to non-elderly patients: outcomes in 206 combined procedures

AIMS

Combined ERCP/EUS is becoming common. Combined procedures are frequently performed in elderly patients. We hypothesized that combined ERCP/EUS is equally safe in elderly patients when compared to non-elderly patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-center study comparing outcomes in elderly and non-elderly patients undergoing combined ERCP/EUS.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients were included. Mean age was 65 years (M:F 113:93); 99 were <65 years and 107 were >65. Indications included: jaundice (51%), abnormal imaging (17%), pancreatic tumor (11%), abdominal pain (5%), stent placement/change (5%), acute or chronic pancreatitis (5%), other (6%). Fine needle aspiration was performed in 134 (65%) procedures. Malignancy was identified in 142/206 (69%) patients. Mean Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 7.5 (range 0-22). Among patients <65 years old there were no immediate adverse events. Long-term adverse events in patients <65 (within 30 days) included cholangitis (1), increasing abdominal pain (4), post-ERCP pancreatitis (3), nausea/vomiting (1), increasing fatigue (1), and increasing jaundice (1). A subgroup analysis among geriatric patients (>65) was performed. Mean CCI was 8.2 (range 0-22). There was one immediate adverse event of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia in a 76-year old. Long-term adverse events included increasing fatigue (1), nausea/vomiting (2), increasing abdominal pain (2), urosepsis (1), fever (2) and dehydration (1). There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes in elderly compared to non-elderly patients. Elderly patients had higher CCI scores (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Combined ERCP/EUS in one session is safe in the general population and elderly patients, with no more adverse events than in non-elderly patients.

Age-dependent safety analysis of propofol-based deep sedation for ERCP and EUS procedures at an endoscopy training center in a developing country

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures in elderly patients are on the rise, and they play an important role in the diagnosis and management of various gastrointestinal diseases. The use of deep sedation in these patients has been established as a safe and effective technique in Western countries; however, it is uncertain if the situation holds true among Asians. The present study aimed to evaluate the age-dependent safety analysis and clinical efficacy of propofol-based deep sedation (PBDS) for ERCP and EUS procedures in adult patients at a World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand.

METHODS

We undertook a retrospective review of anesthesia or sedation service records of patients who underwent ERCP and EUS procedures. All procedures were performed by staff endoscopists, and all sedations were administered by anesthesia personnel in the endoscopy room.

RESULTS

PBDS was provided for 491 ERCP and EUS procedures. Of these, 252 patients (mean age, 45.1 + 11.1 years, range 17-65 years) were in the <65 age group, 209 patients (mean age, 71.7 + 4.3 years, range 65-80 years) were in the 65-80 year-old group, and 30 patients (mean age, 84.6 + 4.2 years, range 81-97 years) were in the >80 age group. Common indications for the procedures were pancreatic tumor, cholelithiasis, and gastric tumor. Fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam were the most common sedative drugs used in all three groups. The mean doses of propofol and midazolam in the very old patients were relatively lower than in the other groups. The combination of propofol, midazolam, and fentanyl, as well as propofol and fentanyl, were frequently used in all patients. Sedation-related adverse events and procedure-related complications were not statistically significantly different among the three groups. Hypotension was the most common complication.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of the WGO Endoscopy Training Center in a developing country, PBDS for ERCP and EUS procedures in elderly patients by trained anesthesia personnel with appropriate monitoring is relatively safe and effective. Although adverse cardiovascular events, including hypotension, in this aged group is common, all adverse events were usually transient, mild, and easily treated, with no sequelae.

[A single institution's experience of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography in the eldery patients: outcomes, safety and complications]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

As the population ages, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) is being used increasingly as a diagnostic and therapeutic tool for elderly patients with pancreatobiliary disease. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes, safety and complications associated with ERCP performed in the elderly patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical record of 596 patients who were 50 years of age or older and underwent ERCP from January 2005 to September 2010. The patients were classified into two groups according to the age: non-elderly, 50-74 years old and elderly, ≥75 years old. Comparisons were made between two groups.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-six patients (132 elderly and 464 non-elderly patients) were enrolled. The success rate of ERCP was 89.4% in the elderly and 91.9% in the non-elderly. The major complications were occurred in 11 patients of the elderly and 16 of the non-elderly, and the complication rate was significantly higher in the elderly compared to the non-elderly (8.3% vs. 3.4%, p=0.011). Pancreatitis occurred in 2 elderly patients and 10 non-elderly patients (1.5% vs. 2.1%, p=1.0). There was a higher rate of bleeding in the elderly patients (4.5% vs. 1.3%, p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ERCP is effective and safe even in elderly patients. Outcomes of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in the elderly patients were similar to those in non-elderly patients. Elderly patients undergoing ERCP carried similar risk of pancreatitis but a higher risk of bleeding and perforation compared to non-elderly patients.