Evaluation of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under conscious sedation and general anesthesia

Background and Study Aims: In adults, general anesthesia is usually only provided during endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) when prior attempts using conscious sedation have failed. It was hypothesized that in our hospital, other factors might be associated with general anesthesia for ERCP. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the indications for ERCP under general anesthesia, and to evaluate the underlying diseases, type, and efficacy of ERCP under general anesthesia in comparison with conscious sedation. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 1056 ERCPs that had been carried out with the patients under general anesthesia or conscious sedation. The indications for general anesthesia were recorded, and the underlying diseases, the type and success of the interventions, and the causes of premature ERCP termination in both groups were assessed. Results: Eighteen percent of the ERCPs were performed under general anesthesia and 82% under conscious sedation. The indications for general anesthesia were related to the type of procedure planned (46%), premature termination of ERCP under conscious sedation (28%), and other reasons. Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis and liver transplant recipients received general anesthesia more frequently (general anesthesia vs. conscious sedation, 36% vs. 16%, P<0.0001 and 22% vs. 13%, P = 0.003). Conscious sedation was provided more frequently in patients with neoplasms and cholelithiasis (21% vs. 12%, P = 0.004 and 13% vs. 3%, P<0.001). Painful dilations were performed more frequently with the patients under general anesthesia (60% vs. 19%, P<0.001), whereas major papillotomies were preferably performed with conscious sedation (34% vs. 21%, P=0.006). More interventions per ERCP were performed with the patient under general anesthesia compared to conscious sedation (P<0.001), during the same time (51 +/- 28 min vs. 52 +/- 26 min, P = 0.39). With conscious sedation, the ERCP failure rate was double that with general anesthesia (7% vs. 14%, P = 0.012), mainly due to inadequate conscious sedation (61%). Conclusions: The frequent use of general anesthesia for ERCP at our institution is related to the underlying diseases, which are frequently treated with complex and painful ERCP procedures. The efficacy of ERCP with general anesthesia supports a continued preference for general anesthesia rather than conscious sedation when complex and painful interventional ERCP procedures are planned.