H-Index
79
Scimago Lab
powered by Scopus
JCR
Clarivate
Analytics
14%
Acceptance
Rate
call: +1.631.470.9640
Mon-Fri 10 am - 2 pm EST

Logo

Medical Science Monitor Basic Research
AmJCaseRep

Annals
ISI-Home

eISSN: 1643-3750

Get your full text copy in PDF

Does Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Carry Higher Risk for Patients 90 Years and Older? A Single-Institution Retrospective Study

Shingo Ogiwara, Makoto Furihata, Yoshihiro Inami, Hiroki Okawa, Yusuke Nomoto, Tsuneo Kitamura, Taro Osada, Akihito Nagahara

(Department of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Urayasu Hospital, Urayasu, Chiba, Japan)

Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e928033

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.928033


BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) for patients aged ≥90 years is often required. The safety of ERCP for super-elderly patients is a major concern for gastrointestinal endoscopists. We retrospectively examined the safety of ERCP for super-elderly patients by comparison with patients in their 70s.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed 66 patients aged ≥90 years (Group A) and 43 patients in their 70s (Group B) who underwent ERCP in our institution from January 2012 to October 2019. Data were collected on patients’ backgrounds, corresponding procedures, and clinical outcomes, including adverse events.
RESULTS: Patients in Group A (mean age: 92.3±2.1 years) had significantly poorer performance status (median: 3 vs. 0; P<0.001) and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (median: III vs. II; P<0.001) when compared to Group B (mean age: 75.1±2.7 years). Underlying cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, and orthopedic comorbidity occurrence was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (87.88% vs. 67.44%; P=0.0094). Group A comprised more patients with benign disease than Group B (90.91% vs. 76.74%; P=0.040). Group B comprised more patients with malignant disease (31.82% vs. 53.54%; P=0.041). Emergency ERCP was higher in Group A than in Group B (71.70% vs. 29.73%; P<0.0001). No significant between-group differences in adverse events (15.15% vs. 11.63%; P=0.602) and mortality rate (1.52% vs. 2.33%; P=0.758) were noted.
CONCLUSIONS: Indications for ERCP should not be determined simply based on the super-elderly age of patients. ERCP may not necessarily carry higher risks if endoscopists practice maximal caution against gastrointestinal perforation.

This paper has been published under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.
I agree