Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Environmental footprint and material composition comparison of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes

BACKGROUND

Infection outbreaks associated with contaminated reusable duodenoscopes (RUDs) have induced the development of novel single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs). This study aimed to analyze the material composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) of RUDs and SUDs to assess the sustainability of global and partial SUD implementation.

METHODS

A single-center study evaluated material composition analysis and LCA of one RUD and two SUDs from different manufacturers (A/B). Material composition analysis was performed to evaluate the thermochemical properties of the duodenoscope components. The carbon footprint was calculated using environmental software. We compared the sustainability strategies of universal use of RUDs, frequent use of RUDs with occasional SUDs, and universal use of SUDs over the lifetime of one RUD.

RESULTS

RUDs were substantially heavier (3489 g) than both SUD-A (943 g) and SUD-B (716 g). RUDs were mainly metal alloys (95%), whereas SUDs were mainly plastic polymers and resins (70%-81%). The LCA demonstrated the sustainability of RUDs, with a life cycle carbon footprint 62-82 times lower than universal use of SUDs (152 vs. 10 512-12 640 kg CO2eq) and 10 times lower than occasional use of SUDs (152 vs. 1417-1677 kg CO2eq). Differences were observed between SUD-A and SUD-B (7.9 vs. 6.6 kg CO2eq per endoscope). End-of-life incineration emissions for SUDs were the greatest environmental contributors.

CONCLUSIONS

Widespread adoption of SUDs has greater environmental challenges; it requires a balance between infection control and environmental responsibility. Carbon footprint labelling can help healthcare institutions make sustainable choices and promote environmentally responsible healthcare practices.

Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023.

RESULTS

In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVES

Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

The outcomes and safety of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combining a single-use cholangioscope and a single-use duodenoscope: A multicenter retrospective international study

BACKGROUND

Duodenoscope-related multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections raise concerns. Disposable duodenoscopes have been recently introduced in the market and approved by regulatory agencies with the aim to reduce the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of procedures performed with single-use duodenoscopes in patients with clinical indications to single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter international, retrospective study combining all patients who underwent complex biliopancreatic interventions using the combination of a single-use duodenoscope and a single-use cholangioscope. The primary outcome was technical success defined as ERCP completion for the intended clinical indication. Secondary outcomes were procedural duration, rate of cross-over to reusable duodenoscope, operator-reported satisfaction score (1 to 10) on performance rating of the single-use duodenoscope, and adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients (26, 39.4% female) were included in the study. ERCP was categorized according to ASGE ERCP grading system as 47 (71.2%) grade 3 and 19 (28.8%) grade 4. The technical success rate was 98.5% (65/66). Procedural duration was 64 (interquartile range 15-189) min, cross-over rate to reusable duodenoscope was 1/66 (1.5%). The satisfaction score of the single-use duodenoscope classified by the operators was 8.6 ± 1.3 points. Four patients (6.1%) experienced AEs not directly related to the single-use duodenoscope, namely 2 post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), 1 cholangitis and 1 bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use duodenoscope is effective, reliable and safe even in technically challenging procedures with a non-inferiority to reusable duodenoscope, making these devices a viable alternative to standard reusable equipment.

International Delphi Consensus Study on disposable single-use endoscopy: A path to clinical adoption

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Increasing infectious rate estimates and low microbiological surveillance affect safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy globally. Single use endoscopes and accessories have been claimed to improve safety, but there is lack of data on their indication and sustainability. We aimed to identify a series of best practice recommendations for the use of single use endoscopes and accessories using a modified Delphi.

METHODS/DESIGN

Consensus statements for the use of single use endoscopy and accessories were developed using a modified Delphi process, utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 62 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached. High-risk patients were defined as those with multi-drug-resistant infections, immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy, post-transplantation, or with severe neutropenia.

RESULTS

Of the 26 statements that were voted upon through two rounds, 17 statements reached consensus. Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories. The study's findings should serve as a framework for future physicians to guide future research and aid the proper evidence-based indications for the implementation of single use endoscopes in clinical practice.

Urgent ERCP performed with single-use duodenoscope (SUD) in patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis: Single-center prospective study

Background and study aims To assess the outcomes of urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed with a single-use duodenoscope (SUD) in patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis. Patients and methods Between 2021 and 2022 consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis were prospectively enrolled to undergo urgent ERCP with SUD. Technical success was defined as the completion of the planned procedure with SUD. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors related to incidence of adverse events (AEs) and mortality. Results Thirty-five consecutive patients (15 female, age 81.4±6.7 years) were enrolled. Twelve (34.3%) had severe cholangitis; 26 (74.3%) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3. Twenty-eight patients (80.0%) had a naïve papilla. Biliary sphincterotomy and complete stone clearance were performed in 29 (82.9%) and 30 patients (85.7%), respectively; in three cases (8.6%), concomitant endoscopic ultrasound-gallbladder drainage was performed. Technical and clinical success rates were 100%. Thirty-day and 3-month mortality were 2.9% and 14.3%, respectively. One patient had mild post-ERCP pancreatitis and two had delayed bleeding. No patient or procedural variables were related to AEs. ASA score 4 and leucopenia were related to 3-month mortality; on multivariate analysis, leukopenia was the only variable independently related to 3-month mortality (odds ratio 12.8; 95% confidence interval 1.03-157.2; P =0.03). Conclusions The results of this "proof of concept" study suggest that SUD use could be considered safe and effective for urgent ERCP for acute cholangitis. This approach abolishes duodenoscope contamination from infected patients without impairing clinical outcomes.

Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Cannulation rates and technical performance evaluation of commericially available single-use duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single use duodenoscopes were developed to reduce the risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. To this end, we examined various biliary interventions using single use duodenoscopes in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through Aug 2022 to identify studies reporting on the performance of single use duodenoscopes for ERCP.

RESULTS

Seven articles were included in the final analysis that included 642 patients (318 males). The Exalt Model D duodenoscope was used in most cases (88.8%) followed by the aScope Duodeno (11.2%) for ERCP. Most ERCPs had a complexity grade of 2 (n = 303) and 3 (n = 198). The pooled cumulative rate of successful cannulation was 95% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 93-96%, I2=0%, P = 0.46). Sphincterotomy was successfully performed in all cases. The pooled cumulative rate of PEP was 2% (95% CI: 0.4-3.4%, I2=0%, P = 0.80). The pooled cumulative rate of total adverse events was 7% (95% CI: 4-10%, I2=47%, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that single use duodenoscopes are associated with high cannulation rates, technical performance, and safety profile.

Global prospective case series of ERCPs using a single-use duodenoscope

BACKGROUND

 The first commercialized single-use duodenoscope was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2019. Data regarding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using a single-use duodenoscope are needed on a broader range of cases conducted by endoscopists with varying levels of experience in a wide range of geographic areas.

METHODS

 61 endoscopists at 22 academic centers in 11 countries performed ERCP procedures in adult patients aged ≥ 18. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to a reusable endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

 Among 551 patients, 236 (42.8 %) were aged > 65, 281 (51.0 %) were men, and 256 (46.5 %) had their procedure as an inpatient. ERCPs included 196 (35.6 %) with American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy complexity of grades 3-4. A total of 529 ERCPs (96.0 %) were completed: 503 (91.3 %) using only the single-use duodenoscope, and 26 (4.7 %) with crossover to a reusable endoscope. There were 22 ERCPs (4.0 %) that were not completed, of which 11 (2.0 %) included a crossover and 11 (2.0 %) were aborted cases (no crossover). Median ERCP completion time was 24.0 minutes. Median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope was 8.0 (scale of 1 to 10 [best]). SAEs were reported in 43 patients (7.8 %), including 17 (3.1 %) who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

 In academic medical centers over a wide geographic distribution, endoscopists with varying levels of experience using the first marketed single-use duodenoscope had good ERCP procedural success and reported high performance ratings for this device.

Evaluation of a novel disposable esophagogastroduodenoscopy system in emergency, bedside, and intraoperative settings: Pilot study (with videos)

OBJECTIVES

The disposable esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) system is a novel endoscopic device which is highly portable and is designed to eliminate the risk of cross-infection caused by reusable EGD. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of disposable EGD in emergency, bedside, and intraoperative settings.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-center, noncomparative study. Disposable EGD was used for emergency, bedside, and intraoperative endoscopies in 30 patients. The primary end-point was the technical success rate of the disposable EGD. Secondary end-points included technical performance indicators including clinical operability, image quality score, procedure time, the incidence of device malfunction and/or failure, and the incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 30 patients underwent diagnosis and/or treatment with disposable EGD. Therapeutic EGD was performed on 13/30 patients, including hemostasis (n = 3), foreign body retrieval (n = 6), nasoenteric tube placement (n = 3), and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (n = 1). The technical success rate was 100%: all procedures and indicated interventions were completed without changing to a conventional upper endoscope. The mean image quality score obtained immediately after procedure completion was 3.72 ± 0.56. The mean (± SD) procedure time was 7.4 (± 7.6) min. There were no device malfunctions or failures, device-related adverse events, or overall adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The disposable EGD may be a feasible alternative to the traditional EGD in emergency, bedside, and intraoperative settings. Preliminary data show that it is a safe and effective tool for diagnosis and treatment in emergency and bedside upper gastrointestinal cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2100051452, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=134284).

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.

Disposable Duodenoscopes: Evidence and Open Issues

Duodenoscope-related infections are a major concern in medicine and GI endoscopy, especially in fragile patients. Disposable duodenoscopes seem to be the right tool to minimize the problem: a good choice for patients with many comorbidities or with a high risk of carrying multidrug resistant bacteria. Urgent endoscopy could also be a good setting for the use of single-use duodenoscopes, especially when the risk of the infection cannot be evaluated. Their safety and efficacy in performing ERCP has been proven in many studies. However, randomized clinical trials and comparative large studies with reusable scopes are lacking. Moreover, the present early stage of their introduction on the market does not allow a large economical evaluation for each health system. Thus, accurate economical and safety comparisons with cap-disposable duodenoscopes are needed. Moreover, the environmental impact of single-use duodenoscopes should be carefully evaluated, considering the ongoing climate change. In conclusion, definitive guidelines are needed to choose wisely the appropriate patients for ERCP with disposable duodenoscopes as the complete switch to single-use duodenoscopes seems to be difficult, to date. Many issues are still open, and they need to be carefully evaluated in further, larger studies.

Single-use duodenoscopes compared with reusable duodenoscopes in patients carrying multidrug-resistant microorganisms: a break-even cost analysis

Background and study aims  Single-use duodenoscopes can prevent transmission of microorganisms through contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. Concerns regarding their economic and environmental impact impede the transition to single-use duodenoscopes. This study investigated the costs associated with two scenarios in which single-use duodenoscopes are used in patients carrying multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs). Methods  Break-even costs for single-use duodenoscopes were calculated for two scenarios in which patients were screened for MDRO carriage before undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Only direct costs related to the endoscopy were taken into consideration. In Scenario 1, patients were screened through microbiological culturing with a lag time in receiving the test result. In Scenario 2, screening was performed using GeneXpert analysis providing a rapid read-out. Calculations were performed using data from a Dutch tertiary care center and also with US healthcare data. Results  In the Dutch situation, single-use duodenoscopes needed to be priced at a maximum of € 140 to € 250 to break-even. In the US analyses, break-even costs varied widely, depending on the duodenoscope-associated infection costs used, ERCP volume, and infection risk. The break-even costs in Scenario 1 ranged between $78.21 and $2,747.54 and in Scenario 2, between $248.89 and $2,209.23. Conclusions  This study showed that a crossover scenario in which single-use duodenoscopes are only used in patients carrying MDROs could be an economically viable alternative to a complete transition to single-use duodenoscopes. In the Dutch setting, single-use duodenoscopes need to be priced much lower than in the United States to reach a per-procedure cost that is comparable with a scenario using reusable duodenoscopes exclusively.

[A systematic analysis of nosocomial outbreaks of nosocomial infections after gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and colonoscopy (CLN) come with a potential risk of pathogen transmission. Unfortunately, up to now data on the causes and the distribution of pathogens is rather sparse.We performed a systematic review of the medical literature using the Worldwide Outbreak Database, the PubMed, and Embase. We then checked so-retrieved articles for potential sources of the outbreak, the spectrum of pathogens, the attack rates, mortality and infection control measures.In total 73 outbreaks (EGD: 24, ERCP: 42; CLN: 7) got included. The corresponding attack rates were 3.5%, 7.1% and 12.8% and mortality rates were 6.3%, 12.7% and 10.0% respectively. EGD was highly associated with transmission of enterobacteria including a large proportion of multi-drug resistant strains. ERCP led primarily to transmission of non-fermenting gram-negative rods. The most frequent cause was human failure during reprocessing regardless of the type of endoscope.Staff working in the field of endoscopy should always be aware of the possibility of pathogen transmission in order to detect and terminate those events at the early most time point. Furthermore, proper ongoing education of staff involved in the reprocessing and maintenance of endoscopes is crucial. Single-use devices may be an alternative option and lower the risk of pathogen transmission, but on the downside may also increase costs and waste.

Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) possesses a translocation risk of microbes to the biliary system. We studied bile contamination during ERC and its impact on patients' outcome in a real-life-situation.

METHODS

Ninety-nine ERCs were analyzed and microbial samples were taken from the throat before and from bile during ERC and from irrigation fluid of the duodenoscope before and after ERC.

RESULTS

91.2% of cholangitis patients had detectable microbes in the bile (sensitivity 91%), but the same was true for 86.2% in the non-cholangitis group. Bacteroides fragilis (p=0.015) was significantly associated with cholangitis. In 41.7% of ERCs with contaminated endoscopes these microbes were found in the bile after the procedure. Analysis of duodenoscopes' irrigation liquid after ERC matched the microbial bile analysis of these patients in 78.8%. Identical microbial species were in throat and in bile samples of the same ERC in 33% of all cases and in 45% in the non-cholangitis group. Transmission of microbes to the biliary tract did not result in more frequent cholangitis, longer hospital stays, or worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

During ERC bile samples are regularly contaminated with microbes of the oral cavity but it did not affect clinical outcome.

ERCP with single-use disposable duodenoscopes in four different set-ups

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has until now always been performed using a reusable non-sterile duodenoscope. The introduction of the new single-use disposable duodenoscope makes it possible to perform perioperative transgastric and rendezvous ERCP in an almost sterile manner. It also eliminates the risk of patient-to-patient transmission of infection in non-sterile settings. We present four patients who underwent different types of ERCP using a sterile single-use duodenoscope. This case report aims to demonstrate the use and the many potential advantages of the new disposable single-use duodenoscope in both sterile and non-sterile settings.

Prospective Study Assessing Impact of Ethylene Oxide Sterilization on Endoscopic Ultrasound Image Quality

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Duodenoscope-associated transmission of infections has raised questions about efficacy of endoscope reprocessing using high-level disinfection (HLD). Although ethylene oxide (ETO) gas sterilization is effective in eradicating microbes, the impact of ETO on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging equipment remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the changes in EUS image quality associated with HLD vs HLD followed by ETO sterilization.

METHODS

Four new EUS instruments were assigned to 2 groups: Group 1 (HLD) and Group 2 (HLD + ETO). The echoendoscopes were assessed at baseline, monthly for 6 months, and once every 3 to 4 months thereafter, for a total of 12 time points. At each time point, review of EUS video and still image quality was performed by an expert panel of reviewers along with phantom-based objective testing. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess whether the modality of reprocessing impacted image and video quality.

RESULTS

For clinical testing, mixed linear models showed minimal quantitative differences in linear analog score (P = .04; estimated change, 3.12; scale, 0-100) and overall image quality value (P = .007; estimated change, -0.12; scale, 1-5) favoring ETO but not for rank value (P = .06). On phantom testing, maximum depth of penetration was lower for ETO endoscopes (P < .001; change in depth, 0.49 cm).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective study, expert review and phantom-based testing demonstrated minimal differences in image quality between echoendoscopes reprocessed using HLD vs ETO + HLD over 2 years of clinical use. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term clinical impact of these findings. In the interim, these results support use of ETO sterilization of EUS instruments if deemed clinically necessary.

Bacterial contamination and organic residue after reprocessing in duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps compared with duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Newly designed duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps have been developed for better cleaning and preprocessing to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination (BC). We compared BC and organic residue of duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps and duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps after manual cleaning and high-level disinfection (HLD).

METHODS

Four hundred duodenoscopes were randomized into group A (fixed distal caps, n = 200) and group B (disposable distal caps, n = 200). After manual cleaning, samples from the elevator were submitted for culture. An adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test was performed for organic residue evaluation. Based on our previous data, ATP < 40 relative light units (RLUs) had 100% sensitivity with 100% negative predictive value to confirm no BC after reprocessing.

RESULTS

After manual cleaning, group A had a higher BC rate (14% vs 7%, P = .02), a higher proportion of duodenoscopes with ATP ≥ 40 RLUs (73.5% vs 57%, P = .001), and a higher mean of ATP level (226.6 vs 82.0 RLUs, P < .001) compared with group B. After HLD, the proportion of potential BC (ATP ≥ 40 RLUs) in group A was 2.7 times higher than group B (4% vs 1.5%, P = .13). Mean ATP level after HLD in the 2 groups was significantly lower than before the HLD procedure (group A, 24.2 vs 226.6 RLUs [P < .001]; group B, 20.4 vs 82.0 RLUs [P < .001], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

After manual cleaning, duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps had significantly lower BC and organic residue than duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps. Only a few duodenoscopes from each group did not pass the ATP threshold after HLD.

Risk factors for infections after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a retrospective cohort analysis of US Medicare Fee-For-Service claims, 2015-2021

OBJECTIVE

Contaminated reprocessed duodenoscopes pose a serious threat to patients in the endoscopy unit. Despite manufacturer changes to reprocessing guidelines, 20% of reprocessed duodenoscopes meet criteria for quarantine-level contamination based on microbiological or ATP testing. We aimed to examine risk factors for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) infection.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

US Medicare Fee-For-Service claims (2015-2021) and all-payer data (2017).

PARTICIPANTS

In the Medicare data, 823 575 ERCP procedures were included. The all-payer five-state data, 16 609 procedures were included.

INTERVENTIONS

ERCP was identified by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease (ICD) procedure codes. We identified inpatient infections using ICD diagnosis codes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

A logistic regression model predicted risk factors for infections occurring within 7-day and 30-day periods following ERCP. 7-day and 30-day all-cause hospitalisations and post-ERCP pancreatitis were also examined.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP infection occurred within 3.5% of 7-day and 7.7% of 30-day periods in Medicare. Disposable duodenoscopes were billed in 711 procedures, with 1.4% (n=10, 7-day) and 3.5% (n=25, 30-day) post-ERCP infections. Urgent ERCPs were the strongest risk factor for infections in the 7-day period (OR 3.3, 95% CI 3.2 to 3.4). Chronic conditions, sex (male), age (older) and race (non-white) were also risk factors. In the all-payer five-state data, fewer infections (2.4%, 7 days) were observed. No difference arose between Medicare and other payers for 7-day period infections (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent ERCPs, patient chronic conditions and patient demographics are post-ERCP infection risk factors. Patients with infection risk factors should be targeted for specialised infection control prevention measures, including disposable duodenoscopes.

Transcystic Choledochoscopy Utilizing a Disposable Choledochoscope: How We Do It

BACKGROUND

Biliary disease is common occurrence and can make up a large portion of the practice of a general surgeon. Choledocholithasis is a common entity amongst those with biliary disease. Although modern trends favor endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and other imaging modalities for the diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is likely underutilized.

METHODS

A literature summary utilizing a PUBMED search was performed to provide an up-to-date account regarding the latest data on LCBDE. A video identifying and explaining the critical components of a LBCDE procedure is provided.

RESULTS

LCBDE is an underutilized procedure which offers equivalent clinical outcomes compared with ERCP along with a shorter length of stay and reduced costs. LCBDE is also noted to be an effective option for common bile duct stones in the setting of altered anatomy, such as a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

CONCLUSION

Although modern trends favor ERCP and other imaging modalities for the diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis, LCBDE is likely underutilized by surgeons. LCBDE can provide many benefits to patients including avoidance of additional procedures, shorter length of stay, higher success rates, and less costs. Out video should act is a guide for those surgeons interested in implementation LCBDE in their practice.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

Disposable versus reusable gastroscopes: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Disposable gastroscopes have recently been developed to eliminate the risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable gastroscopes. We compared the performance of disposable and reusable gastroscopes in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients requiring gastroscopy were randomized to either the disposable or reusable digital gastroscope group. The primary endpoint was the success rate of photographing customary anatomic sites, with a noninferiority margin of -8%. Secondary endpoints were technical performance factors such as gastroscope imaging quality, maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, and safety. Data were analyzed using the Newcombe-Wilson score method and Fisher exact 2-tailed t test.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients, 55 were treated using disposable gastroscopes and 55 using reusable gastroscopes. The success rate for capturing images of customary anatomic sites was 100% in both groups. The average imaging quality score was significantly lower (37.02 ± 3.09 vs 39.47 ± 1.92, P < .001) and the operating time significantly longer (P < .001) in the disposable gastroscope group. No significant differences in maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, or safety were found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, disposable gastroscopes represent an alternative to reusable gastroscopes for routine examination, bedside first aid, and some certain circumstances.

Integration of robotic in the reprocessing and transfer of endoscopes

Background and study aims  Optimal hygiene is crucial for patients undergoing flexible endoscopy. Reprocessing is currently influenced by manual procedures performed by endoscopy staff. To overcome this limitation, we designed and evaluated the integration of robotic application for an automated endoscope processing pathway. Methods  We used an endoscope reprocessing pass through machine with drying cabinet and a Franka Emika Panda robot. The robot was programmed to interact with its environment in a compliant way, guaranteeing desired contact force thresholds and therefore ensuring safety of both robot and medical equipment. Results  In an initial phase we tested the robots' ability to handle a modified tray holding an endoscope as well as certain challenges (correct positioning, connection of tubing, undesired collisions). We added another Panda robot arm resulting in a device featuring two independent manipulators and tested the accuracy of each individual step. We evaluated 50 consecutive processing and transfer procedures, simulating the average daily throughput of an endoscopic unit. The endoscopes were removed in adapted tray using a specially designed lifting device and placed in an endoscope storage and venting cabinet. The mean time for the handling of the scope was 104.2 ± 1.2 seconds and an accuracy of 100 % (0 failures in 50 attempts) was achieved. Conclusions  To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description and evaluation of an automated compliant robotic assistance in the processing of endoscopes. Further development could help to overcome shortcomings of the man handled endoscope processing and could lead to reproducible, standardized and certified endoscope processing.

Analysis of reported adverse events related to single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable endcaps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps emerged in the market to mitigate the risk of ERCP-related infections. We aimed to investigate adverse events associated with these devices occurring after U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

METHODS

We analyzed postmarketing surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from July 2018 to June 2021.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-five reports comprising 201 device issues and 118 patient adverse events were identified from July 2018 through June 2021. Most device issues related to the single-use duodenoscope were due to optical problems (7 reports). Other reported device issues included difficulty in advancing the duodenoscope (2 reports), fluid leak (2 reports), and use-of-device problems (2 reports). Among the duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps, most device issues were related to bacterial contamination (53 reports), followed by issues with device use (31 reports), detachment/separation of the device (25 reports), and crack/dent in device material (16 reports). Overall, the most frequently reported patient adverse events were tissue injury (63 reports), perforation (8 reports), and bleeding (7 reports). Ninety reports of microbial contamination of duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps were identified, of which Pseudomonas aeruginosa was most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the MAUDE database highlight patient and device adverse events that endoscopists should be aware of in using single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps. Whereas these devices mitigate the risk of transmitting infection, they are associated with additional device-associated adverse events.

Single-use duodenoscopes for the prevention of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography -related cross-infection – from bench studies to clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Several strategies have been implemented to reduce or abolish the life-threatening risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related multidrug-resistant infections due to duodenoscopes contaminations; among those strategies, serial microbiologic tests, thorough reprocessing schedules, and use of removable scope cap have been adopted, but the potential cross-infection risk was not eliminated.

AIM

To review available evidence in the field of single-use duodenoscopes (SUD) use for ERCP.

METHODS

An overview on ongoing clinical studies was also performed to delineate which data will become available in the next future.

RESULTS

One bench comparative study and four clinical trials performed with EXALT model-D (Boston Scientific Corp., United States) have been identified. Of them, one is a randomized controlled trial, while the other three studies are prospective single-arm, cross-over studies. Pooled technical success rate (4 studies, 368 patients) was 92.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.9-95.5; I²: 11.8%]. Pooled serious adverse event (4 studies, 381 patients) rate was 5.9% [3.7%-8.5%; I²: 0.0%].

CONCLUSION

Although few clinical trials are available, evidence is concordant in identifying an absolute feasibility and safety and feasibility for SUD use for ERCP. The expertise and quality of evidence in this field are going to be improved by further large clinical trials; data on cost-effectiveness and environmental impact will be needed for a worldwide spread of SUD use for ERCP.

Cost utility analysis of strategies for minimizing risk of duodenoscope-related infections

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms by duodenoscopes during ERCP is problematical. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently recommended transitioning away from reusable fixed-endcap duodenoscopes to those with innovative device designs that make reprocessing easier, more effective, or unnecessary. Partially disposable (PD) duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps and fully disposable (FD) duodenoscopes are now available. We assessed the relative cost of approaches to minimizing infection transmission, taking into account duodenoscope-transmitted infection cost.

METHODS

We developed a Monte Carlo analysis model in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with a multistate trial framework to assess the cost utility of various approaches: single high-level disinfection (HLD), double HLD, ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization, culture and hold, PD duodenoscopes, and FD duodenoscopes. We simulated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost by duodenoscope-transmitted infection and factored this into the average cost for each approach.

RESULTS

At infection transmission rates <1%, PD duodenoscopes were most favorable from a cost utility standpoint in our base model. The FD duodenoscope minimizes the potential for infection transmission and is more favorable from a cost utility standpoint than use of reprocessable duodenoscopes after single or double HLD at all infection rates, EtO sterilization for infection rates >.32%, and culture and hold for infection rates >.56%. Accounting for alternate scenarios of variation in hospital volume, QALY value, post-ERCP lifespan, and environmental cost shifted cost utility profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model indicates that PD duodenoscopes represent the most favorable option from a cost utility standpoint for ERCP, with anticipated very low infection transmission rates and a low-cost disposable element. These data underscore the importance of cost calculations that account for the potential for infection transmission and associated patient morbidity/mortality.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation.

Risk evaluation of duodenoscope-associated infections in the Netherlands calls for a heightened awareness of device-related infections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The risk of exogenous infections from endoscopic procedures is often cited as almost negligible (1 infection in 1.8 million procedures); however, this risk is based on older literature and does not seem to match the number of infectious outbreaks due to contaminated duodenoscopes reported after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Using Dutch data, we aimed to estimate the minimum risk of duodenoscope-associated infection (DAI) and colonization (DAC) in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified all DAI outbreaks in the Netherlands reported between 2008 and 2019. Included cases were confirmed by molecular matching of patient and duodenoscope cultures. Risk ratios were calculated based on the total number of ERCPs performed during the study period.

RESULTS

Three outbreaks were reported and published between 2008 and 2018, including 21 confirmed DAI cases and 52 confirmed DAC cases. The estimated number of ERCPs performed during the same period was 181 209-227 006. The calculated minimum estimated DAI risk was approximately 0.01 % and the minimum estimated DAC risk was 0.023 %-0.029 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated risk of DAI in Dutch ERCP practice was at least 180 times higher than previously published risk estimates. The actual risk is likely to be (much) higher due to underreporting of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and sensitive bacteria. Greater awareness by healthcare personnel involved in endoscopy and endoscope cleaning is required, as well as innovative technical solutions to contain and ultimately eliminate DAIs.

Disposable duodenoscopes. Is healthcare system affordability the main hindrance?

The performance of an endoscopic procedure involves introducing an endoscope through the mouth or the anus, which may potentially lead to lethal infection. The risk increases when complex and difficult-to-clean scopes are used, as in the case of duodenoscopes. Side-viewing duodenoscopes are complex in design, with the camera and working channel exit located on one side of the endoscope's distal end, and with an elevator nail also located at this point for catheter redirection. This complex design may facilitate the presence of blind areas not easy to access for cleaning, resulting in suboptimal disinfection of the duodenoscope and therefore a higher risk of bacterial infection. This is of particular importance in particularly vulnerable patients like those who are immunosuppressed (e.g., transplanted patients) or have a malignant disease and are receiving chemotherapy. Moreover, in the era of ¨superbugs¨, like carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, infection outbreaks related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have been reported with a significant mortality rate.

[Single-use products in endoscopy-from consumables to single-use scopes]

Clinically relevant infections triggered by the use of flexible endoscopes and respective consumables have become the focus of clinical and scientific interest in the literature. Endoscopy-associated infections can be assigned to one of two groups: (i) endogenous infections are triggered by the spread of the patient's own local flora and (ii) exogenous infections result from transmission of contaminated material or endoscopes. The number of reported infectious complications in flexible endoscopy is low but likely underestimated due to inadequate surveillance strategies and lack of clinical symptoms. To prevent exogenous infections, single-use endoscopes were brought to the market. Single-use bronchoscope have been part of routine clinical care for years, while single-use duodenoscopes have only recently been approved. The increased patient safety and economic costs were clearly evaluated for the single-use bronchoscopes, but this still needs to be studied for single-use duodenoscopes. The use of single-use endoscopes-at first glance-represents an additional financial burden on the healthcare system. However, in addition to the material costs of disposable endoscopes, the costs that are avoided by them (e.g., prolonged hospitalization, intensive care treatment, and follow-up interventions) must also be included in the overall calculation.

Evaluation of the performances of a single-use duodenoscope: Prospective multi-center national study

OBJECTIVES

A single-use duodenoscope (SUD) has been recently developed to overcome issues with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related cross-infections. The aim was to evaluate SUD safety and performance in a prospective multi-centre study.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing ERCP in six French centers were prospectively enrolled. All procedures were performed with the SUD; in case of ERCP failure, operators switched to a reusable duodenoscope. Study outcomes were the successful completion of the procedure with SUD, safety and operators' satisfaction based on a VAS 0-10 and on 22 qualitative items. The study protocol was approved by French authorities and registered (ID-RCB: 2020-A00346-33). External companies collected the database and performed statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (34 females, median age 65.5 years old) were enrolled. Main indications were bile duct stones (41.7%) and malignant biliary obstruction (26.7%). Most ERCP were considered ASGE grade 2 (58.3%) or 3 (35.0%). Fifty-seven (95.0%) procedures were completed using the SUD. Failures were unrelated to SUD (one duodenal stricture, one ampullary infiltration, and one tight biliary stricture) and could not be completed with reusable duodenoscopes. Median operators' satisfaction was 9 (7-9). Qualitative assessments were considered clinically satisfactory in a median of 100% of items and comparable to a reusable duodenoscope in 97.9% of items. Three patients (5%) reported an adverse event. None was SUD-related.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a SUD allows ERCP to be performed with an optimal successful rate. Our data show that SUD could be used for several ERCP indications and levels of complexity.

Single-use duodenoscope for ERCP performed by endoscopists with a range of experience in procedures of variable complexity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience.

METHODS

Fourteen "expert" (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 "less-expert" endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P = .131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P = .999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P = .130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P = .954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P = .840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P < .001). Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.).

The feasibility and safety of disposable endoscope vs. conventional endoscope for upper gastrointestinal tract examination: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, non-inferiority trial

Background A disposable upper gastrointestinal endoscope can effectively decrease infectious outbreaks associated with endoscope reuse. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a disposable endoscope for upper gastrointestinal examination.

Methods In a prospective, randomized trial, 144 upper endoscopic procedures were allocated to either the disposable endoscope group or the conventional endoscope group. The primary outcomes were rates of excellent and good image qualities and maneuverability satisfaction. The second outcome included procedure duration, endoscopic diagnosis, and adverse events.

Results A total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the present analysis and prospectively randomized to 2 study groups. Finally, 70 and 69 subjects were enrolled in the novel disposable endoscope group and the conventional endoscope group, respectively, due to the schedule cancellation of 5 subjects. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The excellent and good image quality rates and maneuverability satisfaction of the novel disposable endoscope were not inferior to the conventional endoscope (p = 0.99 and p = 0.99, respectively). Moreover, no significant between-group difference was observed in the endoscopic results and adverse events (p = 0.30 and p = 1, respectively). However, the procedure duration in the novel disposable endoscope was longer compared with the conventional endoscope (8.40 ± 4.28 min vs. 5.12 ± 2.65 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusions The novel disposable endoscope was as safe, effective, and maneuverable as a conventional endoscope. However, the novel disposable endoscope was associated with a longer procedure duration.

Current State and Future of Infection Prevention in Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units tend to be busy environments in which numerous categories of staff provide moderately complex procedural care to high volumes of patients. The prevention of infections of both patients and staff is a never-ending endeavor for both inpatient and outpatient environments. Necessary considerations must address patient-to-staff, staff-to-patient, environmental, and device-related transmission of infection. In addition to the typical environmental and interpersonal infection risks present in all medical environments, the major concern within the endoscopy suite relates to contamination and potential transmission via reusable devices and endoscopes. Our understanding of this ever-present issue has evolved over time and has become a major focus of scrutiny in the past 5 years. This significant problem has stimulated guidance and ingenuity by regulators, investigators, and industry. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 to 21 has also added significant burdens to our infection control efforts in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Single-use duodenoscopes: where are we and where are we going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the growing concerns about infection transmission from use of contaminated reusable duodenoscopes, technological advancements have been made that vary from modifications of existing designs to development of single-use devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

To circumvent mechanical limitations that preclude access to critical areas of a duodenoscope to perform thorough cleaning and disinfection, single-use disposable duodenoscopes have been developed. A thorough assessment of this technology is limited by the minimal published data that is currently available. This opinion assesses the current technical functionality of these devices, potential for further improvements, implications for healthcare economics and the future of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

SUMMARY

Currently available data suggest that majority of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures can be safely performed using single-use duodenoscopes. The ability to improve technical functionality, incorporate futuristic technology and secure financial reimbursement from insurance carriers will largely define the future prospects of this recent innovation.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Current practice and future research

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from a primarily diagnostic to therapeutic procedure in hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease. Most commonly, ERCPs are performed for choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, but improvements in technology and technique have allowed for management of pancreatic duct stones, benign and malignant strictures, and bile and pancreatic leaks. As an example of necessity driving innovation, the new disposable duodenoscopes have been introduced into practice. With the advantage of eliminating transmissible infections, they represent a paradigm shift in quality improvement within ERCP. With procedures becoming more complicated, the necessity for anesthesia involvement and safety of propofol use and general anesthesia has become better defined. The improvements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have allowed for direct bile duct access and EUS facilitated bile duct access for ERCP. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, selective cannulation can be performed with overtube-assisted enteroscopy, laparoscopic surgery assistance, or the EUS-directed transgastric ERCP. Cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy use has become ubiquitous with defined indications for large bile duct stones, indeterminate strictures, and hepatobiliary and pancreatic neoplasia. This review summarizes the recent advances in infection prevention, quality improvement, pancreaticobiliary access, and management of hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. Where appropriate, future research directions are included in each section.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Manifestations, mechanism and management

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is considered the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has become an international danger to human health. Although respiratory transmission and symptoms are still the essential manifestations of COVID-19, the digestive system could be an unconventional or supplementary route for COVID-19 to be transmitted and manifested, most likely due to the presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 can trigger hepatic injury via direct binding to the ACE2 receptor in cholangiocytes, antibody-dependent enhancement of infection, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, inflammatory cytokine storms, ischemia/reperfusion injury, and adverse events of treatment drugs. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which are unusual in patients with COVID-19, and some digestive signs may occur without other respiratory symptoms. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can be found in infected patients' stool, demonstrating the likelihood of transmission through the fecal-oral route. In addition, liver function should be monitored during COVID-19, particularly in more severe cases. This review summarizes the evidence for extra-pulmonary manifestations, mechanisms, and management of COVID-19, particularly those related to the gastrointestinal tract and liver.

Prospective evaluation of an assessment tool for technical performance of duodenoscopes

OBJECTIVE

While single-use and detachable-tip duodenoscopes have been recently developed to overcome risks of infection transmission, there are no reliable tools to objectively assess their technical performance. We evaluated the reliability and validity of a newly developed tool to assess the technical performance of reusable duodenoscopes.

METHODS

An assessment tool was developed to measure duodenoscope performance based on three distinct criteria: maneuverability, mechanical/imaging characteristics and ability to perform requisite interventions. The assessment tool was tested prospectively on duodenoscopes used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures at nine academic medical centers over a 6-month period. The main outcome was reliability of the duodenoscope assessment tool, which was estimated using Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α). The secondary outcome was validity of the assessment tool.

RESULTS

The assessment tool evaluated technical performance of reusable duodenoscopes in 1080 ERCP procedures. Indications were biliary in 92.8% and pancreatic in 7.2% procedures. The overall Cronbach's coefficient α for maneuverability was 0.81, assessment of mechanical/imaging characteristics was 0.92, and ability to perform requisite interventions was 0.87. On multiple linear regression analysis, prolonged procedure duration, older patient age and pancreatic interventions were significantly positively associated with higher (worse) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed assessment tool appears reliable and valid for evaluating the technical performance of duodenoscopes. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04004533.

Single Use (disposable) Duodenoscope: Recent Development and Future

Unlike simple forward-viewing endoscopes such as gastroscope or colonoscope, duodenoscope houses much more complex design to fulfil its function. This design differences leave duodenoscopes more prone to contamination from inadequate disinfection process and potential dissemination of pathogens. Recent reports on dissemination of infection through the duodenoscope mandated an overhaul of duodenoscope utilization including development of a disposable duodenoscope. This article reviews the current state of disposable duodenoscope development, including reported early efficacy as well as its future direction and utilization.